Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SAINT GEORGE, BOTOLPH LANE, CHURCHYARD BILL

SAINT MARY, HORNSEY, BILL

Read the Third time and pased.

THAMES VALLEY WATER BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

ALL SAINTS, STREATHAM BILL [Lords]

CHRIST CHURCH WITH SAINT ANDREW AND SAINT MICHAEL, EAST GREEN WICH BILL [Lords]

MERSEY TUNNEL (LIVERPOOL/ WALLASEY) BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

PETITION

Countryside Bill

Mr. Iremonger: I rise to present a national Petition to Parliament from the British Motorcyclists Federation about the Countryside Bill. The Prayer of the Petition reads:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The humble Petition of the undersigned members of the affiliated clubs and supporters of the British Motorcyclists Federation,
SHEWETH
That the Countryside Bill, 1968, as amended, by Standing Committee of the House of Commons, does not provide reasonable access to the countryside to motor vehicle users, nor does it make sufficient provision of facilities for motor sport.
Wherefore, your Petitioners pray that Parliament should amend this Bill justly to safeguard the interests of and provide access to the countryside for pleasure purposes to all sections of the community whether on foot, horseback, motorcycle or car and to safeguard

public rights of way for vehicles as properly established by custom and to make available sufficient facilities for motor sport in national parks and country parks.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever humbly pray.
The Petition is signed by over 7,000 signatories.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Rhodesia

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will state the progress of the latest sanctions taken against the illegal régime in Rhodesia.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the future of sanctions against Rhodesia.

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what further action he has taken within the framework of the efforts of the United Nations and Commonwealth countries to implement comprehensive mandatory sanctions against Rhodesia; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Biffen: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what is the latest assessment he has made of the effect of sanctions on the Rhodesian economy and on Rhodesian domestic politics.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. George Thomson): I would refer the hon. Members to the statements made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and by myself on 27th March, 1968.

Mr. Winnick: Can the Commonwealth Secretary give any indication how soon it will be when sanctions are extended and along what lines they are likely to be extended? Are we in touch with the United Nations Secretariat about sanction-busting, as one or two countries should know better?

Mr. Thomson: We are of course in touch with the United Nations Secretariat, and in the United Nations itself


consultations are going on about a possible resolution. I should not like to anticipate the results of those consultations.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be the utmost resistance on this side of the House to any extension of these sanctions, which have strengthened Mr. Smith?—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Witness the lifting of the censorship. If the object is to induce negotiations, will the right hon. Gentleman take up the offer of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home)?

Mr. Thomson: I cannot agree with the hon. Member. The question of extension of sanctions is of course something that is designed to indicate to the régime that, however long it seeks to go along this road, it is a road which leads to economic stagnation. I think that enjoys very general support at the United Nations as well as very considerable support in this House.

Mr. Biffen: On Question No. 27, could the right hon. Gentleman confirm that in fact the political position of Mr. Smith in Rhodesia today is stronger than ever before? Is it not now quite clear that sanctions is a policy which is far more hurtful to this country than it is in promoting the cause which the Government seek to promote?

Mr. Thomson: No, Sir. I cannot accept that at all. I think the hon. Member must know very well that at the moment, for example, Rhodesia has cut herself off from her traditional sources of outside development capital and is using her internal resources for wasteful stockpiling of unexportable commodities like tobacco. Since the African population of Rhodesia is increasing very rapidly, the real economic state in Rhodesia is one of decline.

Mr. Whitaker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, unless the sanctions policy is made effective, there is a danger that the Commonwealth will not survive? Will he therefore consider listing the individual foreign companies which are violating sanctions so that measures can be taken against them at the United Nations?

Mr. Thomson: I agree with my hon. Friend that the future of the Commonwealth is very much at stake in making sanctions as effective as possible. The suggestion my hon. Friend makes is one of a number of suggestions that are under consideration at the United Nations at the moment.

Mr. Maudling: The Secretary of State did not answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), which was simply this. Is it not a fact that the political position of Mr. Smith is now stronger than ever?

Mr. Thomson: I am increasingly depressed by the degree to which hon. Members, and now right hon. Members, opposite rush in to suggest how strong Mr. Smith is. These great and serious moral international issues must be seen in a much longer time scale than the temporary popularity of an individual over a month or two.

Mr. Maudling: That is not good enough. The point simply is that the House should know whether sanctions are working. Have not sanctions in fact strengthened the position of Mr. Smith?

Mr. Thomson: In the short run sanctions are bound to have the effect that the right hon. Gentleman is describing. Is he drawing the implication from that, that in the short run we should surrender? I certainly do not draw that implication.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs which countries are, and which are not, now applying United Nations mandatory sanctions against Rhodesia; what representations have been made in this regard; and with what result.

Mr. George Thomson: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Eveyn King) on 25th January, 1968. As the hon. Member will be aware, exchanges between Governments are confidential.—[Vol. 757, c. 173.]

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Since when there has been no change. Is not the Secretary of State aware that one of the consequences of this futile farce is that other members of the United Nations—competitors of ours—are merely taking our


trade? When will the Government face facts and bind up these self-inflicted wounds?

Mr. Thomson: If the hon. Gentleman feels that way, why does he resist the proposal for comprehensive mandatory sanctions which would put those people who are, as he says, taking our trade on an equal footing with British traders?

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the latest recommendations of the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee.

Mr. George Thomson: No, Sir. The Committee's proceedings are confidential.

Mr. Fraser: Notwithstanding that, could the Government, in consultation with our Commonwealth colleagues, use every possible pressure—for instance, on Portugal—whether it be through N.A.T.O., E.F.T.A. or any other medium, to ensure that there is proper policing of sanctions on the Mozambique border?

Mr. Thomson: I assure my hon. Friend that the discussions now going on at the United Nations are designed to fulfil the purposes he has in mind.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: We welcome the Secretary of State back from his recent very long journey. Did he obtain from Commonwealth Governments in Asia a very great deal of support for his sanctions policy?

Mr. Thomson: Yes.

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what information he now has regarding the number of men under sentence of death in Rhodesia as the result of guerilla activity; whether next of kin have been informed; and whether the names of all those thus sentenced are now known.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. William Whitlock): There is nothing that I can at present add to the Answer which was given to my hon. Friend on 12th March.—[Vol. 760, c. 262.]

Mr. Judd: Does my hon. Friend agree that that sentence for any of the freedom fighters in what amounts to a civil war situation is utterly indefensible, and that they should be assured of prisoner-of-war status? If we are not in a position

to guarantee that ourselves, will my hon. Friend initiate discussions with the Red Cross?

Mr. Whitlock: The names of all those who have been sentenced cannot be known because some have been withheld for security reasons. Moreover, the names of those whom the régime has announced its intention of not hanging have not been disclosed. It would therefore be very difficult to find out by any means who are the people involved.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is it Her Majesty's Government's position that it is all right for Mr. Dupont, the Officer Administering the Government, as he is called, to exercise or usurp the Royal prerogative of mercy and reprieve persons sentenced to death in Rhodesia?

Mr. Whitlock: No, Sir.

Mr. Brooks: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will state Her Majesty's Government's policy with regard to the maintenance of law and order in Rhodesia.

Mr. George Thomson: Her Majesty's Government would deplore a breakdown of law and order in Rhodesia. Their policy is to promote a return to constitutional rule and they do not believe that this will be achieved by violence.

Mr. Brooks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the policy of sanctions is designed to cause a crisis of confidence and of government in Salisbury? Is not the very success of the sanctions policy to be measured, at least to some extent, by a steady weakening of the internal forces of law, order and racialist repression?

Mr. Thomson: I do not agree with that. The policy of sanctions is designed precisely in order to try to produce a peaceful solution without all the suffering to people of all races that would result from the use of force and violence.

Mr. Colin Jackson: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in Southern Rhodesia.

Mr. George Thomson: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I said in the debate on Rhodesia on 27th March.

Mr. Jackson: Bearing in mind certain remarks from hon. Members opposite


today, will my right hon. Friend remind the House that the State of Mr. Smith is a police State? Is there any evidence either in education or housing that Mr. Smith's régime has moved any way towards a multiracial society?

Mr. Thomson: On education and housing, I am afraid that the sad evidence is that the Smith régime have been moving in a more segregationist direction. We of course welcome the lifting of the censorship by the régime inside Rhodesia, although I am bound to say that I would feel more optimistic about the future if the régime were to go ahead and lift some of the more oppressive features of the police State.

Mr. Maudling: Does it remain the position of the Government that they are not prepared to have any negotiations with the present régime of Mr. Smith?

Mr. Thomson: The immediate question is to see what comes out of the consultations at present going on in the Security Council. This is the immediate scene of future action in relation to Rhodesia.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will remove the word British from the title of the British South Africa Police, in view of the fact that they are now fighting for the Rhodesian illegal régime against loyal British subjects in Rhodesia.

Mr. Whitlock: This would serve no useful purpose.

Mr. Jenkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that some of the casualties suffered by white rebels in Rhodesia have been created by bombing by the Royal Rhodesian Air Force? Will he advise Her Majesty to remove the title "royal" from this traitorous and inaccurate organisation?

Mr. Whitlock: That is an entirely different question.

Biafra (British Nationals)

Mr. James Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on the situation of those United Kingdom citizens isolated in Biafra; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to ensure the safety of United Kingdom citizens in Biafra; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. George Thomson: Since the reply given on 12th February to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney), a number of our nationals who decided to leave have been able to do so and are now back in this country. We have still no direct means of keeping in touch with those who, despite our advice to leave in the past, have chosen to remain, but there is an International Red Cross team working in the area.
We have drawn the Federal Nigerian Government's attention to our concern for the safety of those British nationals still living in areas which may become involved in the fighting. The Federal Nigerian Government have undertaken to notify their military commanders accordingly.

Mr. Davidson: Precisely how many British citizens are still isolated in Biafra? Has any consideration been given to the offer which I made orally to the Minister of State on behalf of Caledonian Airways to send in an aircraft, if approved by the Government, to take out the British citizens stranded there?

Mr. Thomson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his constructive offer of help. I do not think that this is the real problem. There are about 110 British nationals still in Eastern Nigeria. Most of these are missionaries, and our opinion is that they do not at present wish to leave. Indeed, some of the 110 have gone out to Biafra only recently.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am sure that the Secretary of State realises the deep interest which there is in Scotland in what goes on in Biafra, on account of the work of the Church of Scotland there over very many years. What are the Government doing to prevent the bombing of Scottish mission hospitals and missions schools, particularly in view of what happened recently at the Mary Slessor Hospital at Itu?

Mr. Thomson: I appreciate the concern there is in Scotland and throughout Britain about the tragic civil war in


Nigeria. On the latter point, a civil war brings some very ugly incidents on both sides and the right thing to do is to direct all one's energies to trying to bring it to an end. There are other Questions on the Order Paper about this, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are doing all we can about it.

Asian Immigrants from Kenya

Mr. Archer: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what is the result of his discussions with other Commonwealth Governments on the question of the admission of Asian immigrants from Kenya who hold passports of the United Kingdom and Colonies; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Whitlock: As my right hon. Friend stated in his reply to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) on 28th March, we are maintaining close contact with the Commonwealth Governments principally concerned with arrangements for the admission of United Kingdom passports holders of Asian origin from Kenya.

Mr. Archer: Has my hon. Friend made it clear that, while Britain accepts the major responsibility, if the Commonwealth means anything this is just the kind of question on which responsibility should be shared by other Commonwealth members?

Mr. Whitlock: It would be very helpful if other countries accepted these immigrants from Kenya. This is a matter for Commonwealth Governments themselves, and they would not need to refer to Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Fisher: If large numbers of Kenyan Asians arrive this summer from India, what is the Government's policy to be? Will they admit them, in which case it makes nonsense of the recent Act of Parliament, or will they reject them, in which case what is to become of these people? Are they to be in perpetual orbit between England and India or India and Kenya?

Mr. Whitlock: We shall have to face that situation when it comes, but the Government of India have already admitted several hundred Kenyans for a temporary period. All the indications are

at the moment that those ready to leave Kenya left in the panic exodus before the recent Act was introduced. The expected cancellation of residence permits has not yet reached significant proportions.

Mr. Braine: Does the Under-Secretary realise that this is quite intolerable since his statement leaves in doubt and uncertainty large numbers of British subjects in Kenya? If he cannot give a clear answer now, will he undertake that a clear answer on this subject will be given?

Mr. Whitlock: There is every reason to hope that the Kenyan immigrant legislation which the House recently passed will be administered in such a way as to cause no difficulty.

Uganda (Mr. Cooksey)

Mr. Ronald Bell: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Government of Uganda concerning the violent assault recently made on Mr. Wilfred Cooksey, a citizen of the United Kingdom; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Whitlock: Our High Commissioner in Kampala has made repeated inquiries of the Uganda authorities about the outcome of their investigations into an incident on 31st August, 1967 when Mr. Cooksey was assaulted and his car damaged by gunfire. We had also taken up the matter in London. The Uganda Government have now replied to our inquiries and offered to pay for the damage done to Mr. Cooksey's car.

Mr. Bell: When was that reply received from the Uganda Government? What explanation was given for the quite disgraceful delay which occurred in the Uganda Government giving their reply to the representations of Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Whitlock: The reply was received quite recently. We have been pressing this for some time. There is nothing now to prevent Mr. Cooksey, if he wishes, from instituting a civil suit.

Passports (Falkland Islands and Gibraltar)

Mr. Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (1) whether he will consider granting to


the people of the Falkland Islands United Kingdom passports comparable to those issued to Channel Islanders and Manx-men;

(2) whether he will consider granting to the people of Gibraltar United Kingdom passports comparable to those issued to Channel Islanders and Manxmen.

Mr. Whitlock: If by a comparable passport is meant one which exempts the holder from control under the Commonwealth Immigrants Acts, the answer is, "No".

Mr. Tilney: As there is considerable tear felt by people in both the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar about their future, should not something be done by Her Majesty's Government to enable the citizens of both territories to feel that they qualify for passports similar to those which we have?

Mr. Whitlock: Although the Commonwealth Immigrants Act exempts Channel Islanders and Manxmen from immigration control, it does not similarly exempt from control persons belonging to dependent territories, and it would be wrong for me to defeat the purpose of the Act by providing such persons with exempting passports.

Mr. Maudling: That was, no doubt, a good legal answer, but these are people who have a claim on the interest of this House. Why is it not possible to do what is suggested here to help these people, who are very worried about their future?

Mr. Whitlock: I think that the people of the Falkland Islands are in a totally different category from the people of the Channel Islands. They are 8,000 miles away and, while they are British, to admit them in the way the right hon. Gentleman suggests would defeat the purpose of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act.

Mr. Henig: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, since certain people who depended on this House have just had their basic right to come to this country taken from them, many of us find it nauseating hypocrisy on the part of the other side now to suggest that we should give this right to certain other people?

Gibraltar

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement about a future constitution for Gibraltar.

Sir F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he is now able to announce the date, venue and composition of the Gibraltar constitutional conference.

Mr. Colin Jackson: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement concerning plans for a future constitution for Gibraltar.

Mr. Braine: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether, having regard to the express wish of the Gibraltarians to retain their link with Great Britain, he will now convene the proposed constitutional conference.

Mr. George Thomson: We are having further discussions with Gibraltarian Ministers at the beginning of May. Subject to those discussions, we aim to have the constitutional talks in June.

Mr. Wall: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Gibraltar Constitutional Commission recommended strengthening the tie with this country, more power for the Gibraltar Council and the ending of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act? What will the Government do about these proposals? Does he realise that the Gibraltarians want their status recognised and their future guaranteed by this country?

Mr. Thomson: Yes, Sir; and Her Majesty's Government have given the people of Gibraltar very substantial guarantees indeed. I hoped that the hon. Gentleman would feel that the dates I have now announced show that we are making good progress on this matter. The other questions which he raises will be the subject of these discussions.

Sir F. Bennett: Will the Secretary of State accept from me—I returned from Gibraltar only this morning—that his intimation of dates, though welcome, is much overdue and that the riots which took place over the weekend were not, as his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said yesterday, caused by just


a few hooligans but, in fact, represented the widespread feeling in Gibraltar that it is about time that Her Majesty's Government got on with talks with Gibraltar and not with Spain?

Mr. Thomson: There are, perhaps, conflicting views about the origin of the troubles in Gibraltar, but I think there is agreement that the actual violence was the work of an unrepresentative group of young hooligans.

Mr. Jackson: While disregarding any conflicting views about recent events, will my right hon. Friend remember the opinion of the people of Gibraltar expressed in the referendum last year? May we have a guarantee that, when the constitutional talks do take place, they will, in their detailed expression, represent a closer move by the people of Gibraltar to this country in a political context?

Mr. Thomson: Her Majesty's Government are determined to play their part in fulfilling the view which the Gibraltarians expressed in the referendum as to their own interest. We shall do everything we can to see that that is fulfilled.

Mr. Braine: Whatever view the Secretary of State may take about last week's incidents, will he agree that these were a reflection of the frustration felt by all Gibraltarians about the continued delay in coming to any agreement about their future? Why are there to be constitutional talks at all, since the people of Gibraltar have emphatically declared their desire to remain British?

Mr. Thomson: Unusually for him, the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the purpose of these talks. The referendum gave a plain statement of where the Gibraltar people regarded their interest as lying, and I have said that we stand by that. The constitutional talks are designed to bring about further advances and improvements in the internal constitution of Gibraltar. These are matters which require careful consideration. I hoped that the dates which I have announced would, after some delay, satisfy the House that we are making progress.

Mr. George Jeger: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the feeling in Gibraltar is that we have wasted far too much time discussing extraneous matters with Spain

instead of discussing with the people of Gibraltar how they can be tied more closely to Britain, which is what they want? Will he give a pledge that there will be no more discussions with Spain until a satisfactory solution between the Gibraltarians and ourselves has been arrived at?

Mr. Thomson: Questions about the discussions with Spain are still questions for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I assure my hon. Friend that there is no connection whatever between any talks which may have taken place with Spain in the past and the timing of these constitutional discussions. The only consideration in regard to the constitutional discussions has been the need to do the work of preparation adequately and to settle a timetable related to the interests of the Gibraltarians.

Falkland Islands

Sir J Langford-Holt: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what machinery he will establish to ascertain the views of the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands on the status of those islands.

Sir F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will afford an early opportunity for the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands to give official expression of their views on the future of the territory.

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards the Falkland Islands.

Mr. Braine: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has had from representative bodies in the Falkland Islands for any change in the territory's status; and what steps he now proposes to take to ascertain the wishes of the population in regard to any proposal for the transfer of sovereignty.

Mr. George Thomson: The position of Her Majesty's Government on all these points has been made clear by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in the debate on the Consolidated Fund on 26th March and in reply to Questions on 1st April—[Vol. 762, c. 3–5.]—and by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for


Foreign Affairs in the Adjournment debate on 28th March—[Vol. 761, c. 1868–76.]

Sir J. Langford-Holt: A few minutes ago, the right hon. Gentleman said that substantial guarantees have been given to the people of Gibraltar about their position. Will he assure the House that guarantees of no less force are available for the people of the Falkland Islands, and that any effort to ascertain their views will be on the basis of direct franchise rather than on some basis of indirect franchise thought up by Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Thomson: As I understand it, the people of the Falkland Islands have direct franchise at present. There will be the fullest consultation with their elected representatives in the Legislative Council and the Executive Council. In answer to the main point raised by the hon. Gentleman, I remind him that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave these substantial guarantees in the speeches to which I referred. For example, in answer to a question by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine), he said:
…the wishes of the islanders are an absolute condition ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st April, 1968; Vol. 762, c. 5.]

Sir F. Bennett: If the right hon. Gentleman does not think that a direct referendum such as took place in Gibraltar is necessary here, will he confirm that that is so because he knows in advance what the answer would be? Second, will he remove from the record of what was said by one of his right hon. Friends in another place the one unfortunate word "immediate", when it was said that there will be no immediate transfer of sovereignty without the consent of the Falkland Islanders? Will he once and for all expunge the word "immediate"?

Mr. Thomson: As regards the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, there has been a great misunderstanding that some fundamental change was imminent here. Nothing of the sort has ever been the case. As regards how the people of the Falkland Islands will be consulted, it is too early to prejudge that question because, first of all, we must have something to consult them about, and we have not reached that stage yet.

Mr. Marten: In view of his use of the word "imminent", will the Common

wealth Secretary expand upon the clarity with which he said his right hon. Friend had dealt with this matter and give an absolute assurance that there will be no change in the status of the Falkland Islands at any time without the consent of the people of the Falkland Islands?

Mr. Thomson: That was exactly what I sought to do in answer to the original Question. I thought that it might have saved time.

Mr. Braine: In his answer to my original Question, did the right hon. Gentleman mean that he had had no representations whatever from any bodies in the Falkland Islands? If so, since there is no support for cession in the Falkland Islands, will he make early arrangements to ascertain the wishes of the islanders?

Mr. Thomson: My original Answer did not mean that there had been no representations. We have had a distinguished Member of the Legislative Council of the Falkland Islands in this country.

Mr. Rankin: Will my right hon. Friend assure us that he will not place the fate of this country in the hands of the Falkland Islanders?

Mr. Thomson: My hon. Friend, who is an old and doughty fighter for the right of self-determination, will agree with me that the wishes of the Falkland Islanders are, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, an absolute condition. At the same time, it would clearly be much in the interests of the Falkland Islanders if they were to feel that there was an acceptable modus vivendi arrived at with their neighbours on the mainland of Latin America 200 miles away.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: Does not the Minister realise that the Falkland Islands are British, and will he terminate immediately any negotiations with the Argentine about them?

Mr. Thomson: No, Sir. For the reasons I have just given, I do not think that that would be in the interests of the Falkland Islands.

Nigeria

Mr. Barnes: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will launch a British peace initiative to end


the Nigerian conflict as suggested by Colonel Ojukwu in his letter dated 12th March to certain hon. Members, a copy of which has been sent to him.

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what further action he will now take to effect a peaceful settlement between Biafra and the Nigerian Federal Government.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if, in view of the continuation of the war in Nigeria and the danger of genocide there, what steps he will now take to bring both sides together.

Mr. Booth: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the report he has received on the outcome of the approach made by the head of the Commonwealth Secretariat to the Nigerian Federal Government, in the light of the latest developments.

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what further initiative Her Majesty's Government propose to take to bring about mediation in the civil war in Nigeria.

Mr. George Thomson: We have repeatedly expressed our hopes for a negotiated settlement and an end to the fighting. We have also made it clear that we are ready to consider taking any action which we believe might be helpful in leading to that end. We must of course bear in mind the responsibilities of the Federal Military Government as the government of an independent sovereign state. Moreover there are already a number of peace moves going on, for example by the Commonwealth Secretary-General and the O.A.U. We must be careful not to impede these efforts by well disposed parties which command our ready sympathy. But if the Biafran authorities have any specific proposal which they would like to put to Her Majesty's Government in writing with a view to its being passed on to the Federal authorities, we should be ready to receive it.

Mr. Barnes: Will my right hon. Friend use the influence he undoubtedly has in Lagos to encourage the Federal Government to move closer to the negotiating position now taken up by Colonel Ojukwu? Does he agree that there must

be a limit to the amount of human suffering that the establishment of the 12 States is worth?

Mr. Thomson: We certainly feel as deeply as my hon. Friend and, I know from the evidence of the Questions, hon. Members on both sides of the House feel about the need to end the suffering in the Nigerian civil war. We have constantly pressed on both sides in it the need to get round the table and negotiate a peaceful settlement, and we are continuing to do so.

Mr. Lipton: What specific action are Her Majesty's Government taking to use whatever influence they have with anybody to end this very lamentable state of affairs? Can we stand helplessly by and just see these Africans killing themselves?

Mr. Thomson: We are not standing helplessly by. I assure my hon. Friend that when the history of this tragic episode in Nigeria is written, he will not feel that we have not seized every opportunity to try to bring the fighting to an end.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Would not the most productive move be for Britain to press for a Commonwealth representative, preferably an African, to get both sides together, particularly as the Biafrans are ready to negotiate unconditionally?

Mr. Thomson: My hon. Friend seems to overlook the fact that the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, with our complete support, has for months been trying to do exactly that.

Mr. Tilney: Will the Minister confirm that we would be prepared to co-operate in a Commonwealth peace-keeping force, so that the Ibos would not fear further massacres should they lay down their arms?

Mr. Thomson: I have said in the House on previous occasions that if there were a general desire from Nigeria for a Commonwealth force as part of the settlement of the civil war, we would be ready to consider very carefully whether we could participate in it.

Mr. Woodburn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that nationalism is the


force least subject to reason and argument, that it is causing bloodshed all over the world, and that it is very difficult to have reason applied to it with a view to bringing about a settlement?

Mr. Thomson: I agree.

British Honduras

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will convene a conference in London with the representatives of British Honduras, in order to bring about the independence of British Honduras within the Commonwealth.

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement upon future constitutional advance in the territory of British Honduras.

Mr. George Thomson: I would refer to the reply by my right hon. Friend the former Minister of State on 3rd April to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton).—[Vol. 762, c. 112–13.]

Mr. Fisher: If the right hon. Gentleman receives a request from the Premier of British Honduras for an independence conference in London later this year will he accede to it without waiting for the result of the American mediation over Guatemala, which is quite a separate matter and in any case has taken a very long time?

Mr. Thomson: I am happy to give that assurance.

Mr. Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole territory is in a state of ferment over the danger of a forced amalgamation or a putsch to join Guatemala? Can he give the House a pledge that there will be elections in the territory before we ever get near the stage of final independence?

Mr. Thomson: My hon. Friend's question goes a little wide of the original Questions on the Order Paper. There is no question of any forced amalgamation. As I indicated to the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher), we are waiting for the elected Government of British Honduras to put before us proposals for a constitutional conference.

Zambia

Mr. Brooks: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will initiate discussions with Zambia to explore the possibilities of signing a treaty of mutual assistance with that country.

Mr. Whitlock: I am not persuaded that this would be a desirable course.

Mr. Brooks: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the absence of any formal defence commitment between this country and Zambia the time has now come for an urgent reappraisal of our policy, particularly in the light of possible military adventures across the Zambesi by the Smith régime, or perhaps by its freelance supporters?

Mr. Whitlock: We have no reason to believe that there is any possibility of a military incursion across the Zambesi. Although we have in the past received requests from Zambia for defence aid, and the Zambian Government are known to be concerned at their vulnerability to hostile acts from neighbouring countries, they have not raised with us any question of a mutual assistance treaty, and we have no reason to believe that they would wish to discuss one.

Mr. John Lee: But if the Rhodesians decide to add invasion to their treason shall we come to the assistance of the Zambian Government?

Mr. Whitlock: As I said, we have no reason to believe that Zambia is likely to be subjected to external attack. If it were the victim of unprovoked aggression Her Majesty's Government would take whatever appropriate and practical action is possible in the circumstances.

Mr. Wall: What are Her Majesty's Government doing to prevent invasion the other way round, namely, military incursions from Zambia into Rhodesia?

Mr. Whitlock: These incursions take place quite unofficially. There is no reason to believe that the Zambians, who are concerned with not provoking retaliation from others, should support these at all. The hon. Gentleman will be perfectly aware that the sheer size and physical nature of the borders make


it impossible for the security forces in Zambia constantly to keep an eye on the borders.

Dependent Territories (Executions)

Mr. Hastings: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to find out how many cases there have been over the last 10 years in territories under British colonial administration, of executions having taken place one year or more after the accused had been condemned to death.

Mr. Whitlock: My right hon. Friend is asking the authorities in the Dependent Territories for which he is responsible to provide this information.

Mr. Hastings: Is it not possible that the answer may be rather inconvenient to Her Majesty's Government? Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that 18 men sentenced to death in Singapore were executed a year and seven months later, two years and three months after the commission of their offences? Was it not the exception rather than the rule under British colonial administration for a man to be hanged within a year of sentence? Does this situation not give the lie to the hysteria so sedulously cultivated by the Prime Minister in the recent debate on Rhodesia?

Mr. Whitlock: We have no information to the effect described by the hon. Gentleman. It has been the long-standing policy of successive Secretaries of State to take into consideration the length of time a prisoner has been under sentence of death when advising the Crown about a reprieve.

Mr. Hastings: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Fiji (Wages, Incomes and Prices Report)

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what consideration he has given to the report on incomes and prices in Fiji by Professor H. A. Turner.

Mr. Whitlock: The Report of Professor Turner on wages, incomes and prices

policy in Fiji is currently under study by the Fiji Labour Advisory Board on which the Fiji Employers Consultative Association and the Fiji Trades Union Congress are represented. This study is not yet complete.

Mr. Irvine: Has the hon. Gentleman noted that, in the Report, attention is drawn to the fact that unemployment has in the last 10 years increased five times? In these circumstances, should he not do something about it?

Mr. Whitlock: These are all matters under consideration by the Fiji Government in consultation with representatives of employers and trade unions there. No doubt this point, which was raised in the Report, with all other aspects will receive due weight.

British Solomon Islands (Expatriate Officers)

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what action has been taken on the representations made in August, 1966 to the Secretary of State for the Colonies by the Designated Permanent and Pensionable Officers Association of the British Solomon Islands Protectorate, about pensions and conditions of service.

Mr. Whitlock: The representations of the Association were investigated by a Staffing Mission from the Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Overseas Development in April, 1967. As a result, the level of expatriate officers' emoluments was substantially increased with effect from April, 1967. The Mission also recommended measures to improve conditions of service in the longer term, and these will be discussed with the staff very shortly.

Mr. Irvine: In view of the relatively high number of resignations from the service, is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that there is likely to be a future for officers serving the Solomons?

Mr. Whitlock: As I have indicated, substantial improvements in the current emoluments have been introduced and this provides a breathing space while we are working on a scheme which would retain the experienced staff as necessary to keep the administration going, while


meeting their reasonable claims for recognition that their career prospects have suffered.

Atlantic Free Trade Area

Mr. Moyle: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the United States Government proposals for a feasibility study of a possible Atlantic Free Trade Area.

Mr. Whitlock: I have nothing to add to the replies which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I gave to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) on 21st March and 5th March respectively.—[Vol. 761, c. 596; Vol. 760, c. 201.]

Mr. Moyle: Will my hon. Friend not take the opportunity to correct an inadvertently inaccurate statement? United States Ambassador Roth told the Joint Economic Committee of Congress on 29th January that his office was studying the project.

Mr. Whitlock: As I pointed out to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) on the last occasion, the newspaper report of what Mr. Roth told the Joint Economic Committee of Congress was exaggerated and taken out of context. The United States Government have said that they are undertaking no such feasibility studies.

Oral Answers to Questions — WRITTEN CONSTITUTION

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Prime Minister whether he will recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to clarify the constitutional position of the Government, relevant to the individual, and to define the rights of individuals in a form of written constitution.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I doubt whether the case so far made out for a written constitution is strong enough to justify my recommending the appointment of such a Royal Commission.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: What has the Prime Minister got against setting out impartially the advantages and disadvantages of a written constitution as a safeguard against the constant erosion of the liberty of the subject?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that most hon. Members feel that a written constitution would be in grave danger of infringing the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty and of creating a special category of law which could not be changed by normal legislative process. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the previous Government rejected the Wyatt Report calling for the appointment of a Parliamentary Commissioner, or Ombudsman, whereas we accepted it, with the result that the Parliamentary Commissioner is now functioning.

Mr. Archer: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the protection of the individual in United Kingdom public law is to be found in the International Human Rights Convention to which we are a party? May we hope for ratification during Human Rights Year of the two 1966 Human Rights Conventions?

The Prime Minister: On the first part of his supplementary question my hon. Friend is quite correct. On the latter part I have nothing to add to what has been said before.

Mrs. Ewing: Does not the Prime Minister agree that the rights of Scottish individuals would best be served by any constitution, written or otherwise, emanating from a Scottish base?

The Prime Minister: The rights of Scottish individuals are best protected by the vast majority of Scottish Members of this House.

Mr. McGuire: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to safeguard the liberty of the individual is to extend the powers of the Parliamentary Commissioner?

The Prime Minister: These matters were fully debated during the passage of the legislation and the House has had an opportunity to consider one of the Parliamentary Commissioner's Reports. We want to get more experience of the system and, indeed, the report of the appropriate Select Committee before we consider any changes.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF LABOUR

Mr. Ridley: asked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Minister of State at the Ministry of Labour to help deal


with the legislation arising out of the Royal Commission on Trades Unions and Employers' Associations.

The Prime Minister: I have no such appointment in mind, Sir.

Mr. Ridley: Does not that Answer confirm what the Prime Minister has always thought—that a Royal Commission takes minutes to appoint and years to report? Will he do anything about the Report when he gets it?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt recall the words of the Gracious Speech on this question. Of course we are anxiously awaiting the Report of the Royal Commission, which, I hope, should be ready fairly soon, and we shall then announce our conclusions to the House.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Can my right hon. Friend advance any reason why the Opposition have put forward their own proposals for trade unions before they have even had an opportunity to read the Report?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir—but I thought I saw the Leader of the Opposition trying to get up. Perhaps he will tell us.

Mr. Heath: I speedily make it clear that I am asking the Prime Minister about the new arrangements concerning the Ministry of Labour. I understand from the Press that it is to be streamlined. In which respects are the functions of the Ministry to be changed and how will this be done? In particular, is the new Secretary of State to retain the statutory duties of conciliation which the Minister of Labour has at present? How is this to work when responsibility for prices and incomes policy is also to be placed upon her? Surely it is this which will cause conflict?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity will continue to have all the existing duties, statutory and otherwise, exercised by the Minister of Labour. So far as the changes at the Ministry are concerned, she will now have overall responsibility for the prices and incomes policy, which was previously, of course, in the Department of Economic Affairs. The right hon.

Gentleman fears a conflict of duties. This is not involved in the new arrangements because, as the right hon. Gentleman will remember, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power, when he was at the Ministry of Labour, dealt on an individual basis with the principal wage claims. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will continue to do that but will also have general co-odinating resonsibility for the policy as set out in the White Paper.

Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his right hon. Friend may well be in a position of having to conciliate in disputes that have come about as a result of the prices and incomes policy?

The Prime Minister: That is a problem that we have had over many years—[Interruption.]—and only those who do not take seriously economic problems and getting a satisfactory prices and incomes policy laugh at that particular remark. I do not think that any hon. Gentleman opposite would have wished us to have yielded to excessive demands in the case of the seamen's strike. We had a very difficult choice. Had we done so it would have cast great doubts on our resolve in the matter of prices and incomes. We had a very costly strike. This is a continuing dilemma for any Government that believes in a prices and incomes policy.

Mr. Heath: The Prime Minister has not answered the question. In the past there have been many cases where Ministers responsible for nationalised industries have been following an incomes policy which has caused conflict, and the Minister of Labour has then been brought in in order to resolve this. This will no longer, be possible, because the same Minister is the cause of the conflict and also has a statutory duty to conciliate. Can the Prime Minister also say in which respects the Ministry of Labour is to be streamlined?

The Prime Minister: The question of conflict has always been the same. I remember the former Government's prices and incomes policy collapsing because of an extraordinary award in the electricity industry. That was given as a result of conciliation. One remembers also the dilemma they had in 1964 on the Post Office. As to the streamlining,


by linking together the responsibility for the, general policy and prices and incomes and its implementation, this will cut out a considerable degree of duplication.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH AFRICA (LONDON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE LETTER)

Sir R. Russell: asked the Prime Minister what reply he has sent to the letter he received from the Chairman of the South Africa Executive Committee of the, London Chamber of Commerce, expressing concern at the Government's decision not to supply aircraft and naval vessels to South Africa.

The Prime Minister: I have replied to the effect that there is no reason to think that United Kingdom exports of non-military goods will be jeopardised by continuing the policy which we have followed since 1964 and that we want this important market to be developed by British exporters.

Sir R. Russell: Is the Prime Minister aware that in the first two months of this year our exports to South Africa were £4 million less than in the corresponding period last year, and were no higher than our imports? In view of this deteriorating position will be reconsider the whole policy?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that our exports in 1967, despite the interference in the concluding months by the dock strike, were £257 million compared with only £236 million in 1964, when the arms embargo was introduced. As to the early months of 1968, obviously they would be affected by the dock strike.

Mr. John Lee: Could my right hon. Friend do something about reducing imports from South Africa so as to help this country and hurt South Africa at the same time?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. In general, obviously devaluation provides an incentive to a general reduction of imports, but I was not thinking that it should be applied in respect of individual countries. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that both exports and imports with South Africa have risen very substantially over the last three years.

Mr. Heath: Is the Prime Minister aware that the favourable balance of trade with South Africa, which is what matters, taking both exports and imports into consideration, has steadily declined in 1965–66 and 1967 and in the first two months of this year has declined still further? It is this trend which has to be changed by these additional exports.

The Prime Minister: I have already commented on the first two months of this year. The imports are now revalued at a higher price, as is general with most of our imports. While we must all have concern about any worsening of trade to all markets, I totally disagree with the right hon. Gentleman if he thinks that the way to fill that gap is to breach the agreement we made with the United Nations, following the decision of the United Nations.

Oral Answers to Questions — RHODESIA

Sir Knox Cunningham: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the latest situation in Rhodesia.

Mr Wall: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a further statement on the latest developments in Rhodesia.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary and myself in the debate on Rhodesia on 27th March.—[Vol. 761, c. 1662, 1545.]

Sir Knox Cunningham: Since the Government tell us that there is no moral judgment involved in the recognition of reality—HANSARD, 26th February, column 940—will the Prime Minister face the realities of the situation and get back to trading with Rhodesia?

The Prime Minister: I was not aware that it was a policy, even of the hon. and learned Gentleman's party, to support the removal of sanctions at this time. The realities of this situation are that that country is in rebellion and is recognised by no country in the world.

Mr. Wall: Since the Government claim to govern Rhodesia, what action is the Prime Minister taking to alleviate the worst drought in 40 years which is causing widespread suffering in the rural areas?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware—he was one of those who criticised it—of the approach I made in 1965, in what was then a serious drought, to the Prime Ministers of Australia and Canada. He will also know that the régime refused to receive any help from us on that occasion, although fortunately on that occasion the rains came very quickly after the decision.

Mr. Heath: I would have thought that the whole House welcomed the lifting of the Press censorship in Rhodesia and would have hoped that it would become permanent? Would the Prime Minister join in that welcome?

The Prime Minister: Of course I welcome the removal of the Press censorship—I never thought that it should have been imposed. I heard very little criticism of it from many of the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends while it was in force. I hope that it will now be followed by a very big change on which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, many independent people have commented, in the régime's conditioning of the news by radio and television.

Mr. Faulds: Would my right hon. Friend consider, as a matter of some urgency, holding talks with Zambia to draw up new defence arrangements with that country in view of possible incursions by the rebel régime from Southern Rhodesia?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will know that I have been in touch with the President of Zambia with regard to an earlier meeting, but a talk about defence arrangements has not been proposed for the agenda.

Oral Answers to Questions — VIETNAM

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Prime Minister what communications he has received from the National Liberation Front in Vietnam on matters for which this country is responsible as co-Chairman of the Geneva Agreement.

The Prime Minister: None directly, Sir, though we are, of course, in touch with our Soviet co-Chairman who in turn is in touch with the National Liberation Front.

Mr. Fraser: While recognising the delicate state of negotiations at present, will

my right hon. Friend accept the widely held view that communications and agreement with indigenous political movements in South Vietnam are essential to a lasting political settlement?

The Prime Minister: In all my own discussions with Mr. Kosygin I have had very clear evidence that he was in very close touch throughout those talks with the National Liberation Front, as well as with Hanoi. I have no reason to think that that has not been continuous ever since.

Viscount Lambton: Will the Prime Minister repeat what he previously said, that if it is in the general interest, he will certainly try to call for the reconvening of the Geneva Conference?

The Prime Minister: Yes, certainly. As the noble Lord knows, we have called for this very many times over the last three years. As he will know, the Soviet Government, while accepting its responsibilities as co-Chairman, in the communiqué, feels that the idea of a conference convened by the co-Chairmen at Geneva should follow and not precede agreement between the parties who are now in touch with one another. That is the way in which they would like it handled. We would be ready to do that or to co-operate in any other way in helping the parties concerned with their negotiations.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Will the Prime Minister press the President to remember that the North Vietnamese position is that peace talks will start, when and only when, the bombing of their country is ended unconditionally?

The Prime Minister: The President is well aware of the successive statements that have been made by leading figures in Hanoi and by representatives from Hanoi to everyone who has ever met with them, as my hon. Friend has done. He will also be aware that as a result of the President's initiative there has been a further look at this matter by Hanoi.
I do not underestimate the difficulties or want to exaggerate hopes at this stage. As a result of the large number of contacts, because many countries have been labouring in this vineyard for a considerable period of time, there has been some slight movement closer together. There


was a very big movement at the time of San Antonio, by the President of the United States, and there has been a successive slight movement by Hanoi. We must now hope that the contacts that have been established will be productive.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (AMALGAMATION)

Mr. Fisher: asked the Prime Minister whether, despite the merging of Commonwealth and Foreign Affairs under one Secretary of State, there will continue to be a Minister of Cabinet rank with special responsibility for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies.

The Prime Minister: I have as yet nothing to add to the Answers I gave to Questions on this subject on 28th March.—[Vol. 761, c. 332 and 1726–31.]

Mr. Fisher: Would the Prime Minister bear in mind that everybody's problems are of tremendous importance to themselves and that in the end everybody wants to see the Secretary of State? Therefore, a large number of junior Minister, is not the complete answer and there will be a tremendous workload on one right hon. Gentleman. Is it not also rather a pity that the Commonwealth should lose the best appointment that probably the right hon. Gentleman has ever made?

The Prime Minister: I thank the hon. Gentleman—and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will do so—for what he has said. As he knows, there will be a Commonwealth Secretary right up to the time of the merger in the autumn. What I said on 28th March was that the position would cease thereafter. The hon. Gentleman knows that virtually throughout the Commonwealth they prefer not to have separate Commonwealth Ministers and Foreign Affairs Ministers, and there are many advantages in the merger from their point of view. Nearly always, when Commonwealth statesmen come to this country, they want to see the Foreign Secretary, because they want to discuss with him many aspects of our relations with third countries.

Mr. Maudling: Surely the Prime Minister will recognise that there is apprehension in a number of dependent territcries—the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar

and possibly Honduras—that the interests of the independent territories may conflict with the interests of foreign policy. Therefore, what can he do to assure those people that their interests will be represented in the Cabinet by someone responsible for representing their interests?

The Prime Minister: Of course, from the time of the merger, and indeed before the merger, of the Commonwealth and Colonial Offices, at the time of the previous Government, when the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) represented both Departments, he did not have just a single responsibility for the Colonial Territories. But I am absolutely certain—and arrangements can be made to ensure this—that no Government in this country would ever allow the requirements of the dependent territories to be subordinated to any other factor, and whether or not there is a separate Minister makes no difference to that.

B.O.A.C. BOEING 707 (ACCIDENT)

Mr. Corfield: Mr. Corfield (by Private Notice) asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement giving such details as are at present available to him of the circumstances in which a B.O.A.C. Boeing 707, on a flight to Zurich, crashed at Heathrow on 8th April, 1968.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu): Yes, Sir.
A Boeing 707 of B.O.A.C. took off in a westerly direction at 1627 hours B.S.T. yesterday en route to Sydney with its first stop at Zurich. Very soon after takeoff the aircraft reported fire in an engine on the port side and asked for an emergency landing. The aircraft was cleared to land on any runway. Whilst it was turning to the left for a landing on runway 05, the engine, which is now known to be the inner port engine, became detached and fell away into a water-filled gravel pit. By this time the fire had spread to the wing structure and continued to burn. The pilot maintained control and landed the aircraft successfully on runway 05 with the wing still on fire. The airport fire and rescue services, which had been alerted and were in position near to the runway, went into


operation as soon as the aircraft came to rest. The fire spread rapidly from the port side and was accompanied by explosions. Passengers were evacuated through exits mainly on the starboard side. Four passengers and one stewardess were killed but the remaining 121 occupants escaped.
A team of investigators from the Accidents Investigation Branch of the Board of Trade began investigating the cause of the accident within two hours with the co-operation of experts from B.O.A.C.
The House will join me in expressing sympathy with the relatives and friends of those who lost their lives and in wishing a speedy recovery to those who were injured.
The House would also like me to pay the highest possible tribute to the skill of Captain Taylor and his crew, to the rescue services, and to the calmness of the passengers. The prompt evacuation of so many people in such circumstances was a miracle of skill and organisation.

Mr. Corfield: I associate myself and my right hon. hon. Friend with the Minister's expression of sympathy to the bereaved and his congratulations to and admiration of Captain Taylor, the crew and those concerned with the rescue operation for their remarkable achievement in reducing injury and loss of life. May I put it to the hon. Gentleman that their success must, in part, be due to the fact that B.O.A.C. uses aviation kerosene as a fuel and not the more inflammable fuel used by other airlines? Will he do his utmost to press that this should become universal practice for all airlines, or, at any rate, for those operating into airports in this country?

Mr. Mallalieu: The point about kerosene is very well taken.

Mr. Rankin: Is my hon. Friend aware that in due course—perhaps sooner than we are thinking at present—the jumbo-jet, with its capacity of 400 passengers, will be with us? In the light of yesterday's disaster, would it not seem necessary now to have a fresh look at the extent and nature of our present safety precautions?

Mr. Mallalieu: I think that the safety drills proved themselves absolutely admirable in this accident.

Mr. Onslow: Can the hon. Gentleman say what sort of inquiry will be set up into the circumstances of this disaster, which had a miraculously small toll but which might have been very much more serious?

Mr. Mallalieu: The investigation has already started, and we shall go through with it. Whether it will be necessary to have a public inquiry later remains for my right hon. Friend to decide in the light of the facts which are elicited. But the investigation will be so technical—it is totally about the engine—that I rather doubt whether it will be necessary for the inquiry to go public.

Mr. Lubbock: May I associate my party with the expressions of sympathy for the bereaved and the congratulations which have been extended to the captain, crew and rescue services?
May I ask the hon. Gentleman two questions? First, if he is satisfied that this accident might have been a great deal worse if JP4 had been used. will he make fresh approaches to the International Civil Aviation Organisation with a view to having JP4 totally banned from the world's airlines? Secondly, does not this fresh accident illustrate the folly of Sir Giles Guthrie's having cancelled the last ten VC1Os which he had on order? How does he think that the airline will be able to maintain its schedules with the reduced fleet?

Mr. Mallalieu: I have already dealt with the point about the use of kerosene. I note what the hon. Gentleman says about JP4 and will consider it. I spoke to the Chairman of B.O.A.C. at Heathrow last night. He tells me that he will be able quite satisfactorily to keep to the schedules.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Was it not fortunate that the aeroplane took off in a westerly direction over comparatively open country and that the engine fell into a disused gravel pit rather than, as it might have done if the wind had been another way, into a built-up area? Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the engine will be recovered from the gravel pit so that tests can be made on it?

Mr. Mallalieu: I understand that it has already been recovered.

Mr. Fortescue: Would the hon. Gentleman reconsider the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow)? Since five lives were lost in this disaster, surely there should be a public inquiry, no matter how technical the cause of the accident.

Mr. Mallalieu: My mind is certainly not closed to the possibility of having a public inquiry. But we will go through the usual procedure first of having an ordinary straightforward investigation and then see what happens.

COUNCIL TENANTS' CHARTER

3.39 p.m.

Mr. Robert Edwards: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a charter of rights for council tentants.
It has been my great privilege to introduce six Private Members' Bills. Two of them dealt exclusively with the protection of house owners and, as a consequence, I hope that house owners have some measure of protection against substandard building and the bankruptcy of building firms and that the standard of building has been considerably increased.
The other Bill affecting house owners which I submitted to this House dealt with the high cost of house and land conveyancing. Today, however, I ask leave of the House to submit a modest Bill that establishes a charter of rights for council house tenants.
There are a million council house tenants in England and Wales, and we are building 200,000 new council houses each year. New problems have arisen over the last 20 years creating a situation in which council house tenants are no longer a privileged section of our community. Indeed, in many respects they are rapidly becoming orphans of the storm. They are faced with many new problems arising from the enlargement of authorities, making local councillors more and more remote on huge council estates. They are very much affected by the recent increases in council rents varying from 20 per cent., 50 per cent., and 70 per cent. in the Greater London area over three years. In consequence, a rising tide of discontent has been sweeping great council estates in this country leading to unfortunate campaigns such as rent strikes and marches on councils.
It is clear that large numbers of council tenants feel exploited and frustrated. They have many new problems. Apart from the problem of increased rents, there are the problems of amenities from shortage of telephones to shortage of schools, lack of maintenance and repairs on council estates, air pollution, smells and dust from local factories, and shortage of doctors' surgeries and chemists' shops on council estates. As new council estates are built up and established, new problems arise which demand new ideas from


this House and, in my view, new rights for council tenants.
Many of the difficulties created for council tenants can be laid if there is machinery whereby their legitimate protests and grievances can be ventilated. My modest Bill, which I hope the House will permit me to introduce, does not in any way attempt to undermine the democracy of local government. It does not in any way try to create new institutions and new machinery that will interfere with the legal statutory rights of our local authorities. I propose the establishment of small tribunals comprised of representatives of the tenants, the rate payers and the local council presided over by an independent chairman with professional qualifications. These small tribunals would be established by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in each local authority area. A local authority which decided to increase local rents would submit its proposals to the tribunal, and political parties and recognised groups of tenants' organisations would have the right to argue their case against these increases by explaining how anomalies had arisen for them and the people they represent.
The local council, through its housing committee representative, would open the books and try to prove that it has to balance its budget and show why it is compelled by law to make these rent increase recommendations. The tribunal will have no legal authority. It will look into the grievances of the tenants and analyse the right of the local authority to allocate subsidies as it thinks best and balance its budget. The tribunal will have the right to make a report to the Minister—the report will be published—and the Minister will then decide. This is essentially an advisory body to deal with and report on the mounting problems which arise from anomalies in rent increases which are causing so much discontent among hundreds of thousands of our constituents.
The next proposal in the Bill is the establishment of a housing advisory committee which will meet regularly and will

be representative of recognised political parties, tenants' associations and rate payers. It will have a continuous dialogue dealing with the problems of council house tenants. This will be a means of communication between councillors, the housing committee and the tenants in these great housing estates. It will merely extend the accountability. It will in no way interfere with local government democracy. It is an extension of the means of communication which will perhaps allay the discontent that is undoubtedly sweeping through the great council estates of this country.
I seek to introduce a very modest Bill. It tries essentially to deal with new problems which have arisen from the enlargement of local government. It is our intention in future to regionalise local government. This will bring more and more problems and make the tenants more and more remote from their council representatives. Some of the constituencies represented by councillors in these great new areas of local government are larger than Parliamentary constituencies, so how can a councillor deal with the many problems which arise for council tenants? The number of council houses under the control of some of our big councils has increased to 150,000. Therefore, to deal with these new problems I should like to submit this modest Bill which I think will go a long way to appease the difficulties and allay some of the suspicions and frustrations which are so widespread in this country. Therefore, I now seek the leave of the House to introduce the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Robert Edwards, Mr. Roebuck, Mr. Milne, Mr. Leslie Huckfield, Mr. Horner, Mr. Will Owen, Mr. Woof, Mr. Archer, Mr. Newens, Mr. Rhodes, and Mr. Heffer.

COUNCIL TENANTS' CHARTER

Bill to establish a charter of rights for council tenants, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time on 10th May, 1968, and to be printed. [Bill 128.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICES)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Mr. Richard Crossman be discharged from the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) and that Mr. Fred Peart be added.—[Mr. O'Malley.]

3.50 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: Mr. David Steel (Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles) rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I take it that the hon. Member knows that this Motion has been introduced under Standing Order No. 13?

Mr. Steel: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I want to help the hon. Member. He may make a speech in opposition to the Motion, but it must be a speech under the Ten-Minute Rule. It must be a brief speech.

Mr. Steel: I do not propose to divide the House on the Motion, but I should like to say a few words about it. The House does not have enough opportunity to debate the way in which we run the House and the facilities that are provided for hon. Members to conduct their business. Many hon. Members will be in sympathy with me in seeking this limited opportunity, when we are appointing a new Chairman—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must oppose the Motion. He cannot talk about Select Committees in general. The Motion proposes to substitute one name for another. The hon. Member must now give reasons why he is opposed to the Motion.

Mr. Steel: In that case I am required to oppose the Motion on the ground that I wish the status quo to be maintained. I am not in favour of a new Chairman of the Select Committee on Services. My reason for this is that the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), before he was appointed

Leader of the House, was known to us all as a man who was interested in Parliamentary reform. He was known to be interested in the procedures of the House and in the facilities afforded to hon. Members. As such, his appointment as Leader of the House and Chairman of the Services Committee was most appropriate.
I have great personal affection for the new Leader of the House, but his qualifications for being Chairman of the Services Committee are not known to me. He is not known to me to have campaigned for the rights of ordinary Members, and I submit that there are several matters affecting the business of the House, and the manner in which we run the House of Commons, which ought to be of concern to anyone who is seeking appointment by the House as Chairman of the Select Committee on Services.
Many members of the public are shocked when they learn of the lack of facilities to carry out our business—

Mr. Speaker: Some other occasion must be found for that speech. This is a narrow debate.

Mr. Steel: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House will have a chance to reply to this debate.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman will not be able to reply to it.

Mr. Steel: In that case, I am wasting my sweetness on the desert air, because my object in speaking was to bring the right hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box to show how enthusiastic he was to reform our facilities and to improve them. I hope that he will have these feelings when he takes up his new appointment.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business), and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — COUNTRYSIDE [MONEY] (No. 2)

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to enlarge the functions of the Commission established under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and to make provision as respects the countryside it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any payments by way of allowance to members of any committee concerned with Wales or Monmouthshire.—[Mrs. White.]

3.53 p.m.

Mr. David Gibson-Watt: I should like to refer to the Money Resolution in the very narrow sense in which it has to be discussed. It is being changed this afternoon to make special provision for the payment by Parliament of certain moneys to certain people working for the Commission in Wales.
We shall not oppose the Money Resolution, but I must point out that during the passage of the Bill we were debarred from asking for a separate Commission for Wales because of the restrictive nature of the Money Resolution. We would have liked the Money Resolution to have gone further. Indeed, as I think is known by the Government Front Bench, we would have liked to have had a separate Commission for Wales.
I hope later to be able to move a new Clause and an Amendment to the Countryside Bill, and I shall seek then to show where we think the Government have gone wrong in this matter.

3.54 p.m.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mrs. Eirene White): I intervene only because the hon. Gentleman has done so. The main argument which arises can best be dealt with when we are discussing various new Clauses to the Countryside Bill. I hope that the House will welcome the Money Resolution, which extends the purview of the Bill in a way which makes possible further developments in the Principality. I shall reserve the argument of substance for later in our discussions.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — COUNTRYSIDE BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

3.56 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: As is my wont, I have posted up a list of selected Amendments, but since I came to the Chair I have had some further suggested groupings of Amendments, and for the benefit of the House perhaps I might mention an early one. When we come to new Clause 1, we shall be taking with it, or it is suggested we should take with it, Amendments 11, 12, 13, 17, 19, 20, 23, and 83, which I gather are kindred.

New Clause No. 18.

EXERCISE OF FUNCTIONS OF COMMISSION IN WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE.

(1) The Commission shall, after consultation with the Secretary of State, appoint a Committee for Wales.

(2) The membership of the Committee for Wales shall consist partly of persons who are members of the Commission, one of whom shall be the chairman of the Committee, and partly of persons, not exceeding four in number, who are not members of the Commission.

(3) The Commission may, after consulting the Secretary of State and subject to such conditions as they think appropriate, delegate any of their functions in Wales or Monmouthshire to the Committee for Wales, including (for Wales and Monmouthshire) their advisory functions under section 2 of this Act, and their duty of making recommendations under that section in respect of local authorities' applications for Exchequer grants.

(4) So much of section 2(3) of the Act of 1949 as authorises the payment of allowances in respect of the matters listed in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of that subsection shall apply as if all the members of the Committee for Wales were members of the Commission.—[Mrs. White.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mrs. Eirene White): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This Clause gives substance to the general line of argument which I followed when we discussed this matter in Committee Upstairs. It makes provision for a separate Committee for Wales of the new Countryside Commission. In Committee we had a good deal of discussion about the best way of dealing with the


real problems which have arisen, and can arise in the future, in the Principality.
As the House may know, a large proportion of Wales is already designated as a National Park, or an area of outstanding natural beauty. Discussions are proceeding on the possible designation of another large area in Mid-Wales as another National Park, and this fact of itself must give rise to the consideration that Welsh opinion and Welsh interests should be more specifically provided for than they are under the organisation of the present National Parks Commission, which is the forerunner of the Countryside Commission provided for under the Bill.
We have two eminent Welsh members on the National Parks Commission, and we are extremely grateful to them for the work they do, and the advice they give, particularly with regard to Welsh problems, but, with the extended functions of the new Countryside Commission which is being provided for under the Bill, it seemed to the Secretary of State for Wales and to his colleagues that some more specific arrangement was desirable. Naturally we considered whether a completely separate Countryside Commission for Wales would be the best form of organisation, but, after considerable deliberation, and consultation with Lady Wootton and her colleagues, we came to the conclusion that the most satisfactory arrangement would be to have a separate Committee, but that it should be an organic part of the total organisation for England and Wales.
The reasons for this are partly a matter of economy, not only of money, but of manpower. We did not feel that it was necessary, or desirable, to aftempt to duplicate in Wales the complete apparatus of research, information, and so on, which is at the disposal of the Commission, and will be at the disposal of the new Countryside Commission. This seemed to be wasteful, because there are many respects in which experience gained in one part of the country is valid in another, and even more so where comparisons of experience in different parts of the country can be extremely useful and rewarding.
4.0 p.m.
Scientific matters, such as biology, ornithology, botany, geology and so on, know

no political boundary, and the learned people on the staff of the Commission and those who give their services and advice to it can be used to the fullest possible benefit if there is a combined organisation for some of these purposes. We therefore came to the conclusion, on these grounds, that an entirely separate commission was not in the best interests either of England or of Wales. Furthermore, we are all well aware that a large number of those who enjoy the beauties and the natural interests of Wales come from across the border, and it is right that their interests as consumers, if one might call them such, should be taken into consideration, provided that local interests are given their fullest expression and weight. This is another reason for having a combined organisation.
We suggest in the new Clause that, by having a separate Committee of the Commission, we shall make the best of both worlds. We shall retain the right to use the resources of the Commission, but we shall have a separate body for Wales with the duty of taking special account of Welsh interests and opinions.
In subsection (2), we suggest that membership of the Committee should consist partly of persons who are members of the Commission, one of whom shall be the chairman of the Committee, and partly of persons who are not members of the Commission, not exceeding four in number. This seems to be a reasonable pattern. We shall of course expect to retain on the main Commission the Welsh members who now sit there, and one would expect that they would be members of the Welsh Committee. In addition, we might well expect other members of the main Commission with special interests in the work in Wales including scientific interests, also to be members of the Committee. We have left the number imprecise because, with the variation in membership of the main Commission, it would be unwise to be too rigid in the matter. It depends from time to time upon the interests and experience of the different members participating at any given moment. On the other hand, experience has shown that, if it is to be effective, a body of this sort should not be too large. Hence, the proposal that four members should be appointed to the Committee which we think would be about the right number


to cover the various areas of the Principality.
We have now to consider what the Committee should do. We have suggested that various powers, duties and responsibilities may be delegated from the main Commission to the Welsh Committee after consultation with the Secretary of State, who will also be consulted about the composition of the Committee. We have suggested, by way of example, one or two important powers that might be so delegated. It seems to us desirable not to make an extensive list. If one does so and excludes anything, either by inadvertence or because it is an activity which has not yet become prominent in the work of the Commission, one may be supposed deliberately to be leaving it out. It seemed to us better to give examples only of the kind of work which might be delegated, rather than to attempt to make an all-inclusive list. The examples given are very important ones, namely, the whole gamut of advisory functions under Clause 2, and the other obvious one of making recommendations to the Secretary of State for Wales in respect of applications for Exchequer grant that might come from local authorities in Wales and Monmouthshire.
In this way the matter is left flexible so that, as experience indicates, other spheres and other duties may in due course be added or may be included from the outset. We feel that this should be a matter which the Commission should consider with the Secretary of State and with the members who have been appointed to the Welsh Committee before hard and fast decisions are reached. The new Clause as drafted leaves this open for consideration. It is open also for development in the way in which experience shows to be best.
Finally, in subsection (4) provision is made, which is now included in the Money Resolution, that the normal allowances may be paid to members of the Welsh Committee as they are now paid to members of the Commission. I should perhaps make it clear that power already exists, if desired and agreed by the Treasury, to pay remuneration to members of the full Commission. At the present time the chairman and the deputy chairman only receive such pay

ment. Under the provisions already in existence members of the Commission would be eligible for such payments, including the chairman of the Welsh Committee, if it were decided that the chairman should receive some honorarium for services rendered. The amount is not laid down in the Statute; it is a matter for negotiation with the Treasury. As I say, at the moment only the chairman and the deputy chairman of the main commission receive an honorarium. We would consider that, by negotiation, it might well be decided that the chairman of the Welsh Committee should also receive a suitable honorarium, in addition to the normal out-of-pocket allowances for expenses actually incurred. In this way we are making suitable arrangements for the new Welsh Committee, and I am sure the whole House would wish it well.

Mr. Speaker: May I remind the House that we are taking with the new Clause the two Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt), in line 7, and new Clause 5—"Separate divisions for Wales and Monmouth". If the hon. Member so desires, I am prepared to allow a Division on his first Amendment.

Mr. David Gibson-Watt: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the House is interested in what the Minister of State has said today about the position of Wales under the Bill. However, I must point out to the House that, as the Bill was originally drafted, it was not the Government's intention to give Wales a committee of the Countryside Commission, or a Commission of its own. On Second Reading, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), and the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) and myself spoke in favour of the need for Wales to have a separate commission to administer the provisions of the Bill in Wales. My view has not changed since 10th November, when we had Second Reading. At that time, the Government were firmly of the opinion that Wales did not need a separate commission or committee. That is well shown by what the Parliamentary Secretary said on Second Reading. However, during the Committee stage of the Bill, we saw the Government changing their position gradually. We do not know why that should have been, but


I will come in a moment to some of the possible reasons.
First, they talked of the possibility of an office. Then they talked about an administrative post. Now they have come, dragging their feet, as far as a committee. In Committee on 30th November, we heard the Minister of State for Wales say that the Chairman of the National Parks Commission had said months ago that it had proposed an office to carry out work in Wales, Yet, on 10th November, neither Minister made mention of it on Second Reading. As I say, that they set their faces against any concession to Wales.
What, then, had happened to the proposals from Lady Wootton, the Chairman of the National Parks Commission, during that period and earlier? I think that it is fair and reasonable to ask the Government if the liaison between the Welsh Office and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government was not somewhat imperfect, or if pressure from local authorities and other organisations in Wales had started to have its effect.
During Second Reading, the hon. Lady explained in column 67 some of the reasons why the Minister had not been properly briefed. She said that she was away from London. But surely it shows that the Government had no appreciation of the fact that men and women in Wales felt the need for a special commission or committee with the extended functions contained in this Bill. I explained why we thought that Wales should have a separate commission. Many organisations of a different character have their dual counterparts in Wales, and that fact is often the secret of their success. I will not read to the House the long list of dual committees of this sort. I give only two examples, because they are indicative of the problem and perform functions similar to those which will be carried out under the provisions of the Bill.
The first is the Welsh Land Settlement Society, which was set up before the war to deal with the problems of unemployed miners. The English Land Settlement Society and the Welsh one are totally separate but, at the same time, they perform the same functions. My second example is the National Committee of the Forestry Commission in Wales. The

members are all Welsh and, in dealing with a very difficult problem in view of the conflicting demands of agriculture and forestry, the Committee has worked reasonably well. I am certain that in this way many more people in the Principality feel personally interested in the successful outcome of any venture or project, and it has always been wise for Governments to take advantage of local and national patriotism for successful administration.
In Committee, however, the hon. Lady was somewhat crushing on the subject and accused my hon. Friends and me of jumping on to the separatist bandwagon. If she had read the Order Paper which was available to the House at the time of Second Reading, she would have realised that there was no foundation for her remark. An Amendment in the names of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and the hon. Member for Carmarthen appeared on the Order Paper declining to give a Second Reading to the Bill, but it was not supported by my hon. Friends and me. Therefore, evidence to the contrary was available. But, as I say, it may be that I do her an injustice, since she was out of London on the day in question and was not able to be present during Second Reading to inform her hon. Friends.
Although my hon. Friends and I may speak in much the same vein today as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and the hon. Member for Carmarthen, we do not share with the hon. Gentleman the policy of economic separatism. We never have and certainly we do not at present. That does not alter the fact, however, that we believe that the sort of matter covered by the Bill should be dealt with in Wales by Welsh people, particularly as the Bill will have such a wide effect on the countryside. If it is to succeed, we have to, have good will between those who live in the countryside and those from abroad and from our great cities who want to enjoy it.
4.15 p.m.
The Government's new Clause goes some way towards that for which we ask. However, it does not go far enough, and that is the purpose of the Amendment and the new Clause which my hon. Friends and I have tabled. In practice, the Government will find that, as the Committee


evolves and as matters concerning the various functions come before the scrutiny of the Committee and the Secretary of State for Wales, sooner or later they will come to the conclusion that it would be preferable to establish a separate commission.
In order to entice and encourage the Government a little further along that path, our Amendment says that, after consulting the Secretary of State, the Commission shall delegate all functions in Wales and Monmouth to the Committee for Wales. I cannot see what is wrong with that Amendment. It merely follows out the argument that I have advanced, which is that matters in Wales are attended to far better by Welsh people, and we think that they will be dealt with more competently, economically and speedily. That is why we say that it should be mandatory on the Commission to delegate all its functions after consulting the Secretary of State.
New Clause 5 is reasonable and realistic. After all, it is a nominated council, and rightly so on this occasion. Having come so far with us as regards the choosing of the Committee, the very least that the Government can do is to agree one step further and consent to this practical and sensible measure of devolution. With its rich potential to the visitor, the walker, the pony trekker and the nature lover, Wales deserves no less.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: I want to support the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) in his amendment. I notice that no hon. Members are present today to speak for Scotland, and there is a simple reason for that. The matter has already been settled in Scotland, and Scotland has a Commission. Again, I see no hon. Member present to speak on behalf of Northern Ireland, and the reason is that Northern Ireland has her Government. However, Wales is to remain a nation without a Government and, as matters stand at present, we are to be without a countryside commission. That is no way to treat a nation.
The Government must make a greater effort to adapt themselves to the fact that on this island we have not one nation but three—

Mr. James Dempsey: Four.

Mr. Evans: In these islands, there are four. In this island there are three.
In Committee, the Minister of State gave reasons why Wales, in her opinion, should not have its own commission. As far as I can see, each one of her reasons applies equally to Scotland, but I did not notice any opposition to the Scots having their own separate commission. In these circumstances, it seemed to me that these reasons were only special pleading. They certainly failed to take into account the fundamental fact that we have in Wales a nation, and that Wales herself is the homeland of that nation, and no less than one-third of the area of that homeland is now taken up by national parks.
In reply to the debate on the Second Reading, the Minister gave as the main reason, as I understood him, for denying Wales a Commission the fact that Wales has this great area in her national parks. But surely from the Welsh standpoint this argument is wholly unconvincing, even perverse; because the fact that so large an area is included in national parks in Wales is a fact that should make a Welsh Commission imperative. The arguments deployed against the Commission are so weak that they seem to confirm the Welsh people in their suspicions that we are denied a Commission, not so much because we may be more easily helped, as has been stated on behalf of the Government, but because we may thereby be more easily exploited. But whatever the reason the Government are denying Wales this measure of self-rule.
There is at present no autonomy even in this field. It is true that they have now come to the position where we are to have a few Welsh people in a committee with others dealing with Wales, but this does not change the character of the committee and certainly does not change the character of the control. By throwing a few currants into a rice pudding one may change the flavour of the pudding, but one does not alter its character; and that is the situation here, as I see it. The control remains precisely where it was and we still have here a committee which, as far as the Welsh are


concerned, is without any real responsibility. We have here still a situation of tutelage; in fact, the old imperial relationship all over again. This, as the Government now propose it, is to be a kind of advisory committee with a Welsh flavour. We have in Wales a plethora of these advisory bodies, but they amount to no more than a bit of window dressing. The power of decision has always been retained where it was, in the hands of gentlemen sitting in Whitehall, and we see what a mess they have made of the job of governing Wales.
The Welsh people are getting sick and tired of this rule from Whitehall and of our subordinate relationship which has been continually described by hon. and right hon. Members as one of "co-operation" or of "partnership". In this context the words "co-operation" and "co-partnership" are certainly overworked euphemisms for something else, but in themselves they are relationships that can exist only between autonomous people, between equals. But the partnership between Wales and England today is like co-partnership between Jonah and the Whale.
We are considering in this debate the future administration of a great part of the area of the land, of the soil, of Wales. The Welsh people approach this question conscious of a background of which many hon. Members may be oblivious and I would like to give a few examples of why the Welsh people look with some suspicion, or at least lack of confidence, on the proposals of the Government.
I remember being engaged in the struggle for Mynydd Epynt, the mountain range and valleys taken over by the War Office when they threw out 400 Welsh speaking people and took 30,000 acres of land which had been occupied by those farmers since time immemorial, and moved the linguistic border in some 10 miles on that occasion. That was done in the teeth of the unanimous opposition of the people there, opposition in which I am proud to have taken some part.
Then there was the case of Tryweryn, where a Welsh community was scattered and destroyed and the valley drowned, despite the almost unanimous opposition of the Welsh people. On that occasion

most hon. Members in this House from Wales voted against the Measure, only one hon. Member from Wales voted in favour and yet the Measure was carried overwhelmingly; such is our democracy in Wales, a democracy where the Government can override our united constitutional action and can treat our democratic and political action with some contempt.

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, the hon. Gentleman must come to the Clause.

Mr. Evans: I am trying to illustrate why people in Wales feel some lack of confidence in the proposal made by the Government here. I hope my next example will be right on the point, Mr. Speaker. It is taken from the Upper Towy Valley where the Forestry Commission propose to take some 40,000 acres to plant, as a first instalment of planting nearly 1 million acres in Wales. The opposition had more success this time. Success has not always been obtained in opposing measures taken by the Forestry Commission. I mention this example because the Government now propose to set up in Wales a Committee which resembles the Committee which the Forestry Commission has.
If the Government have more sympathy with and more knowledge of Wales they would realise what a very unhappy precedent this is. Of course, everything is done for the good of Wales; for our good we are to have a rural board imposed upon us against our will, and equally for our good we are apparently to be denied a countryside commission, although we want that very badly. In the words of the song, "When will they ever learn?". When will they ever learn that Wales is a nation and deserves to be treated as a nation, and deserves the right to live as a nation her own national life? When will they ever learn that the era of Empire is over?
This is what we want to impress on the Government on this issue. It may be that the Government are too far gone in their dream of Wales, because I believe there is a Whitehall view of Wales. That is illustrated in this proposal which the Government now makes in the matter of the Countryside Commission. It is a view which sees Wales as a lovely but silent playground for those who live in urban complexes elsewhere, without


industrial roads and railways, beautiful but depopulated, her hills under miles of pine trees, her valleys drowned, with a few natives living affluently in what the Ministry of Agriculture would call "commercial units". But there is a new national self-respect in Wales, a new determination that Wales is to live as a nation with her own institutions and not only a countryside commission. We must be fully equipped with all the institutions which pertain to nationhood, and those must include, of course, in the first place a Government for our people.

Mr. Tudor Watkins: I do not know on what previous occasion I was one of the odd currants coming into the hon. Gentleman's rice pudding, but I am glad to do so whatever may happen under the code of conduct on this side of the House, for I must say I prefer the new Clause of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) to the Amendment of the Government. At the end of the debate I shall have to look at my conscience in that respect but I feel that the argument is far more in favour of new Clause 5 than of the Clause put forward by the Minister of State for Wales. To be perfectly honest on this, I wish I could follow the illustration given by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans), because I would just have said that on the evidence of those illustrations—although it was out of order—I was fully 100 per cent. behind those campaigns, though I had better not refer to them.
An important aspect, first of all, is that I do not like the wording of the Amendment of the Minister of State, because I much prefer that all the functions should be given to the Welsh Committee, and not only particular functions, because who is to decide which functions those shall be? I was not very satisfied about the illustration of functions given by the Minister and I should know something about the functions because I am Chairman of the Advisory Committee of Brecon Beacons National Park under the National Commission. I am not going to say we suffer under the present Commission, but it would be better if we had our own Commission.
4.30 p.m.
If this Committee is formed, will its offices be in Wales and, if so, where? I suppose that, as usual, they will be in a national park, and I suggest that Brecon would be a good centre. I, too, pay a tribute to members of the National Parks Commission, Mr. Elwyn Jones and Dr. Margaret Davies, and also to another member from Brecon, Mr. John de Winton, who has served very well on the Commission. I leave to conjecture the reason why he was pushed out.
Will the membership of the Committee be drawn from the present Commission or from outside? Whoever serves on it should know its functions. Will it decide estimates for the various park authorities and the national parks themselves, or will they be determined by the Commission? The Welsh Office deals with grants of Government expenditure to the national parks and there is no difficulty about going to Whitehall, so why should not the Committee have these functions?
I hope that the Bill will soon be on the Statute Book because of the grants for administration which it will give. I hope that the Front Bench will have second thoughts about which of these Clauses is better for Wales. I suggest that it is new Clause 5 and not the other.

Mr. Emlyn boson: If Wales is rich in anything, it is in committees. To be a member of a committee is a national disease. As the English follow football and racing, the Welsh seem to follow committees. As the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) said, we have a plethora of committees with very little power. It has become a tactic of Government, when faced with the pressure of criticism that they do not acknowledge Wales' national existence and separate social and cultural patterns, to give us a committee. Yet another is proposed here, which will have some crumbs of power at the discretion of the Commission. The Commission is a nominated body, but it will have discretion, after consultation with the Secretary of State, to delegate some functions to the Committee.
This is an absolute sham. The Government had no intention of granting Wales anything. Scotland had not only a separate Commission but separate legislation to create it. I have heard and read


nothing to show how Wales is different in this respect. What justification is there for this different treatment? The Government have been under pressure by me and the hon. Member for Carmarthen, which was followed up in Committee by the hon. Members for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) and Wrexham (Mr. J. Idwal Jones), and they have slowly given way. Now they bring forward the minimum possible proposal, a committee with no absolute powers of its own, and this is not good enough.
The new Clause of the hon. Member for Hereford is preferable to that of the Government. One does not have to be an economic separatist to recognise the need for a separate Welsh Commission. No one has attacked the concept of economic separatism more than I or been attacked more by the Welsh Nationaist Party, but that does not prevent us from agreeing on subjects like this.
No one doubts that Wales has its own social and cultural pattern. Does the Minister of State suggest that the Prime Minister was jumping on the separatist bandwagon when he created the office of Secretary of State for Wales, thus acknowledging that Wales needed separate treatment for some purposes? Why, then, have the Government refused to grant Wales what they granted Scotland? A far greater proportion of the land of Wales is in the national parks than is the case in England or Scotland—[An. HON. MEMBER: "There is none in Scotland."]—I am grateful. This adds strength to my suggestion that, if we are to have separate treatment for anything, it should be on this kind of subject.
The people of Wales are concerned about the land and the national parks which they want developed in a certain way. Why should we be controlled by Whitehall? Why should the Government be so stupid as well as so mean as to propose this Committee? I was not a Member of the Committee, but I am grateful to those hon. Members who took up the cudgels in Committee. I entirely support the new Clause of the hon. Member for Hereford and hope that he will press it to a Division.

Mr. Raymond Gower: I suppose that second thoughts are better than none, and the Government have at least advanced from a flat refusal to

recognise that Wales deserved some special body to this tiny concession of a committee. Also, a partial concession is better than one, but that is all that can be said for this proposal. The Minister of State must feel very uncomfortable about this. After all, she represents a Welsh constituency and is Minister of State, Welsh Office.
I would go a little further than the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) or the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). I think that this is a deplorable failure by the Secretary of State and the Welsh Office. Where were they when this Bill was being considered and drafted? Did they not assert in some small degree the interests of Wales? There has been no argument to justify this remarkable distinction between the Scottish and the Welsh machinery.
We in Wales have a separate gas board and some of us would have liked to have had a separate electricity board. There were reasonably strong economic arguments why such a board should not be established, but there are no similar economic arguments why we should not have a separate Countryside Commission for Wales. While I do not share the separatist views of the hon. Member for Carmarthen, I warn the Government that by their disregard of the reasonable aspirations of the people of Wales they are supplying magnificent material for separatist views. I hope, therefore, that they will have third thoughts on this subject and will revise the Bill because the establishment of a puny, worthless Committee of this sort will not be acceptable to Wales, even if the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery regards it as a concession.

Mr. Hooson: indicated dissent.

Mr. Gower: Perhaps a concession is better than nothing, but I hope that this concession merely postpones the day when a separate Commission will be established for Wales. Indeed, I hope that the Conservative Party will make it clear that it will be our policy to establish such a Commission when we are re-elected to power.
There has been unanimity in the speeches made so far today by Conservatives, Liberals and the Plaid Cymru. Even the hon. Member for Brecon and


Radnor (Mr. Tudor Watkins) is against the Minister. I hope that the hon. Lady will persuade the Government to agree to the moderate proposals put forward so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt).

Mr. Donald Anderson: The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) said that he did not believe in any form of separatism. I suspect that some of his arguments, if carried to their logical conclusion, would lead to at least a form of separatism. I had the honour of being a member of the Standing Committee which discussed the Bill and I fear that we might see developing a sort of Dutch auction between the parties as to which one will gain the separatist vote. There is a marked contradiction between the arguments now being advanced by hon. Gentlemen opposite and the actions they performed when they were in power. I admit that I was not able to be in my place at the beginning of this discussion but, as I say, I had the advantage of being a Member of the Committee upstairs.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: The hon. Gentleman rightly admitted that he did not have the advantage of hearing the speeches made earlier today. I assure him that, speaking for the Conservative Party, I made it clear that we do not agree with economic separatism. If he is considering what my Party did when we were in power, I suggest that if he looks at the record he will find a long list of functions which were carried out for the first time by separate bodies of the type we want to see established, all introduced during our period in office.

Mr. Anderson: But nothing as significant as the establishment as the office of the Secretary of State for Wales. That capped them all.
I urge hon. Gentlemen opposite to bear in mind the danger of conducting a sort of Dutch auction for the separatist vote and of making promises when in opposition which they will not carry out if unhappily, they are ever returned to power.
In Committee I spoke against the "Mark I" draft of the Bill in which it was suggested that Wales should not be given separate treatment. I then ex

pressed pleasure at the concession made by the Government and I reiterate that today. It means that we in Wales will have the best of both worlds, since we will not be excluded from, for example, the research facilities which will be available in the United Kingdom as a whole and since we will have enough devolution to ensure that the interests of Wales are maintained. I hope that there will be scope for further devolution. Since the hon. Member for Barry mentioned that not a voice on this side of the House had been raised in support of the Government, I rise to assure my hon. Friend that she has my support in making this concession.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Hooson: Although the hon. Gentleman does not want Wales to be excluded from the benefits of research, is he suggesting that the Scottish Commission will be excluded from the research carried out in England?

Mr. Anderson: I mentioned research as an example and referred to the benefits which would accrue as a result of the sharing of experience. I am, therefore, happy to see this half-way house for Wales, which is represented by the concession, and I believe that, as a result of it, we will have the best of both worlds.

Mr. J. Idwal Jones: No one will say that I am a separatist. I am certainly not a political nationalist, although I am a cultural nationalist because I want to preserve all the things that I regard as important for Wales. I must admit, therefore, that I am rather unhappy about new Clause 18. After all, there is an established tradition between Whitehall and Wales in certain functions. For example, we have the National Library of Wales. We have had a Welsh Department of the Ministry of Education for a longer number of years. The existence of those separate bodies does not deprive us of information from the national set-up. In addition, we have the National Museum of Wales. I therefore cannot understand why we cannot have a separate Countryside Commission for Wales and Monmouthshire. With these few observations, I leave the matter to my hon. Friend the Minister.

Mrs. White: I have been accused of feeling uncomfortable, but I assure the


hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) that the contrary is the case, for I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Anderson) that the proposal in the Government new Clause represents the best of both worlds for Wales. The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) referred to Jonah and the whale, but Jonah did rather well out of the whale; he had a free trip with all found, I suggest, therefore, that we follow Jonah's example and benefit from the whale.
We believe that by following the Government's proposal we will have the advantages of the English and the Welsh establishment. We will also have the advantages of the separate Welsh Committee. The two Amendments to the new Clause simply represent another way of rejecting it because if all the functions were obligatorily delegated one would have a separate commission, since no functions would be left. They are, therefore, alternative ways of saying the same thing.
The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) made two points which were entirely in favour of the Government's approach. He suggested that as the work of the new Countryside Commission evolved we would find different fields of approach and of development. This is why the new Clause leaves the matter flexible, so that in the light of experience we can see that the functions of the Committee develop in the way which is of the greatest benefit.
He also said that the work should be competently and economically dealt with. It would be completely uneconomic and incompetent to duplicate a great deal of work, which would have to be done if we had completely separate organisations. What we are proposing is emphatically in the best interests of the Principality. I remind the hon. Member far Caernarvon, among others, that it is not an English Minister in Whitehall but a Welsh Minister in Cardiff who will take the decisions on which the advice will be given, for example, on grants to local authorities in Wales.
Broadly, the Commission is not an executive body; it has relatively few executive functions. There are two schools of thought about this and it might have been otherwise, but it is provided that the main executive functions will be with the local authorities. The Com-

mission will have relatively few executive functions and its work will be mostly concerned with research, information, advice, persuasion, education and the like. As to executive matters, one of the main duties of the Commission will be to undertake experimental schemes. I am glad to let the House know that in preparation for this work the Commission has been considering its first priorities for experimental schemes, and they are both to be in Wales. We see the advantage which we can gain: if we had separate Commissions, at least one of these schemes would have been in England.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: In Committee we were told definitely by the Minister of State that no money would be available from the Government for this purpose. How can she now say that the first two examples will be in Wales? Could she tell us, first, where they are to take place in Wales and, secondly, when?

Mrs. White: I can certainly tell the hon. Member where. I shall leave to my right hon. Friend to say when. The first is a proposed mountain land management experimental scheme which will be in the Snowdonia area. The Secretary of State has recently purchased Snowdon and part of its surroundings. It is very appropriate that this experimental scheme should take place on what used to be the Vaynol Estate. The other will be at Dale, in Pembrokeshire, where experimental work will be undertaken on a new type of day-visitor centre.
When we have a Commission which has overall responsibility, Wales can sometimes do exceedingly well. If we had the complete separatism which has been advocated in certain quarters, in all probability we should lose the very valuable services of some most distinguished people in the scientific and amenity fields. To mention an example, Mr. James Fisher, deputy chairman of the Commission, who takes the most intense interest in the problems of conservation and natural life in Wales—

Mr. Hooson: Mr. Hooson rose—

Mrs. White: No, I am not giving way to any hon. Member.

Mr. Hooson: The Scots are misguided?

Mrs. White: The Scots may well find they have been misguided in this matter.


They may have less certain advantages than we in Wales will retain. I make no apology for this. By these means we are obtaining the best of both worlds, the advantages of a large organization for scientific research, information and education, and we are obtaining for Wales the kind of advice by which I am sure the Secretary of State will very much benefit. The pattern suggested which will provide for progressive evolution on these lines is much the best for the Principality. I warmly recommend it to the House in spite of the various views which have been advanced in the discussion.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, I rise to say that we shall certainly not vote against the Government new Clause, but obviously we shall divide the House on our Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Amendment proposed: In subsection (3), line 1, after 'Commission' leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.—[Mr. Gibson-Watt.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 163, Noes 207.

Division No. 114.]
AYES
[4.56 p.m.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)



Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Pardoe, John


Astor, John
Gurden, Harold
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Peel, John


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Percival, Ian


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Hawkins, Paul
Pink, R. Bonner


Beamish, Col, Sir Tufton
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionet
Pounder, Rafton


Bell, Ronald
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Higgins, Terence L.
Pym, Francis


Biffen, John
Hiley, Joseph
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Biggs-Davison, John
Hill, J. E. B.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Hooson, Emlyn
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Black, Sir Cyril
Hornby, Richard
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Body, Richard
Hunt, John
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ridsdale, Julian


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Iremonger, T. L.
Royle, Anthony


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Scott, Nicholas


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Sharples, Richard


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)

Silvester, Frederick


Bullus, Sir Eric
Jopling, Michael
Smith Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Campbell, Gordon
Kimball, Marcus
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Carlisle, Mark
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Speed, Keith


Channon, H. P. G.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Stainton, Keith


Chichester-Clark, R.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Clark, Henry
Lane, David
Stodart, Anthony


Clegg, Walter
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Cooke, Robert
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Taylor, Edward, M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Cordle, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Costain, A. P.
Lloyd, Ian (Portsm'th, Langstone)
Teeling, Sir William


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Longden, Gilbert
Tilney, John


Crouch, David
Loveys, W. H.
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Lubbock, Eric
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Dalkeith, Earl of
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Dance, James
MacArthur, Ian
Vickers, Dame Joan


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Walters, Dennis


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
McMaster, Stanley
Ward, Dame Irene


Drayson, G. B.
Maginnis, John E.
Weatherill, Bernard


Eden, Sir John 
Marten, Neil
Webster, David


Elliot Capt. Walter (Carshatton)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne.N.)
Mawby, Ray
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Emery, Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Errington, Sir Eric
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Eyre, Reginald
Miscampbell, Norman
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Fortescue, Tim
Monro, Hector
Worsley, Marcus


Gibson-Watt, David
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wright, Esmond


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wylie, N. R.


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Younger, Hn. George


Goodhew, Victor
Nott, John



Gower, Raymond
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grant, Anthony
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Mr. Jasper More and


Gresham Cooke, B.
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Timothy Kitson.


Grieve, Percy






NOES


Abse, Leo
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Murray, Albert


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn.Philip (Derby, S.)


Alldritt, Walter
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Norwood, Christopher


Anderson, Donald
Hamling, William
Oakes, Gordon


Archer, Peter
Hannan, William,
O'Malley, Brian


Armstrong, Ernest
Harper, Joseph
Oram, Albert E.


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Orbach, Maurice


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Haseldine, Norman
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Hazell, Bert



Baxter, William
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Padley, Walter


Beaney, Alan
Hilton, W. S.
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Bence, Cyril
Hobden, Wennis (Brighton, K'town)
Palmer, Arthur


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Hooley, Frank
Park, Trevor


Bidwell, Sydney
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Bishop, E. S.
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Pavitt, Laurence


Blackburn, F.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Howie, W.
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Booth, Albert
Hoy, James
Pentland, Norman


Boston, Terence
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Boyden, James
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Price, William (Rugby)


Bradley, Tom
Hynd, John
Probert, Arthur


Bray, Dr, Jeremy
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Randall, Harry


Brooks, Edwin
Jeger, Mrs.Lena (H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras, S.)
Rankin, John


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Richard, Ivor


Brown, Hugh D. (C'gow, Provan)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Buchan, Norman
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Kelley, Richard
Rose, Paul


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Lawson, George
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Cant, R. B.
Leadbitter, Ted
Sheldon, Robert


Carmichael, Neil
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Lee, John (Reading)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Lestor, Miss Joan
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Coleman, Donald
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Concannon, J. D.
Lipton, Marcus
Skeffington, Arthur


Conlan, Bernard
Lomas, Kenneth
Small, William


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Loughlin, Charles
Spriggs, Leslie


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Luard, Evan
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Dalyell, Tam

Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stratford)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Symonds, J. B.


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
McBride, Neil
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McCann, John
Thornton, Ernest


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
MacDermot, Niall
Tuck, Raphael


Dempsey, James
Macdonald, A. H.
Urwin, T. W.


Dickens, James
McGuire, Michael
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Dobson, Ray
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Doig, Peter
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Driberg, Tom
Mackie, John
Wallace, George


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Maclennan, Robert
Watkins, David (Consett)


Eadie, Alex
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Weitzman, David


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wellbeloved, James


Ennals, David
MacPherson, Malcolm
Whitaker, Ben


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
White, Mrs. Elrene


Faulds, Andrew
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Whitlock, William


Fernyhough, E.
Mallalieu, E. L, (Brigg)
Wilkins, W. A.


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Manuel, Archie
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Foley, Maurice
Mapp, Charles
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Marks, Kenneth
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Marquand, David
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Ford, Ben
Maxwell, Robert
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Forrester, John
Mayhew, Christopher
Winnick, David


Freeson, Reginald
Mendelson, J. J.
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Gardner, Tony
Mikardo, Ian
Woof, Robert


Garrett, W. E.
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Yates, Victor


Ginsburg, David
Milne, Edward (Blyth)



Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Mr. Ioan L. Evans and


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Moyle, Roland
Mr. Eric G. Varley.

Clause added to the Bill.

New Clause No. 1.

COUNTRY PARKS: SAILING, BOATING, BATHING AND FISHING.

(1) Without prejudice to the generality of section 6(2) of this Act, where a country park comprises any waterway the kinds of open-air recreation for which the local authority may provide facilities and services under that subsection shall include sailing, boating, bathing and fishing.

(2) If a country park is bounded by the sea, or by any waterway which is not part of the sea, the local authority providing the country park shall have power to carry out such work and do such other things as may appear to them necessary or expedient for facilitating the use of the waters so adjoining the country park by the public for sailing, boating, bathing and fishing and other forms of recreation.

(3) The powers conferred by subsections (1) and (2) above include power to erect buildings or carry out works on land adjoining the sea or other waters but outside the country park, and to construct jetties or other works wholly or partly in the sea or other waters.

(4) The local authority, before acting under the foregoing provisions of this section, shall consult with such other authorities, being authorities which under any enactment have functions relating to the sea or other waters in question, as the Minister may either generally or in any particular case direct, and Schedule 1 to this Act shall have effect as respects any objection made by authorities so consulted.

(5) A local authority may make byelaws regulating the use of works carried out by them pursuant to this section and of any facilities or services provided in connection with the works, but before making any such byelaws the local authority shall consult the Commission:

Provided that byelaws made under this subsection shall not interfere with the exercise of any functions relating to the waters or land to which the byelaws apply which are exercisable by any authority under any enactment.

Section 106 of the Act of 1949 (supplementary provisions as to byelaws) shall have effect as if byelaws under this subsection were bye-laws under that Act.

(6) Nothing in this section shall authorise the carrying out of any operation in contravention of section 34 of the Coast Protection Act 1949 (works detrimental to navigation).—[Mrs. White.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mrs. White: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Clause, we can discuss also Government Amendments Nos. 11, 12, 13, 17, 19, 20, 23 and 83.

Mrs. White: This new Clause really arises out of a discussion which we had in Committee—columns 387–9 on 18th January—in which the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) very rightly pointed out what appeared to be a discrepancy in the Bill. As I freely admitted at the Committee stage, she had put her finger on an anomaly which indeed occurred, and we have taken this opportunity not merely to correct that anomaly but also to do some tidying up in the general arrangement of the Bill, so that we now have included in this one new Clause the various references to the matter concerned. It seemed to us that this would be more convenient for everybody in the future, and I hope very much that it will be acceptable to the House.
The main purpose of the new Clause and the consequential Amendments is to empower local authorities, when creating country parks on the coast or on the banks of waterways, to provide facilities for waterborne recreation on the sea or on the waterways bounding these country parks. When we first discussed this, the hon. Lady pointed out that we had not taken into account the position in which a local authority might be proposing to provide a country park which abutted on to the sea. This new Clause makes this possible and also takes in the other conceivable situation in which there would be a fresh waterway on the edge of a country park and not contained actually within it. I am sure that this is entirely in keeping with the desires of those of us who are concerned with this Bill.
There might be some query as to why it was necessary to put in subsection (3), so I should perhaps just explain this. The reason for this is that one might have a situation in which the country park was separated, for example, from the foreshore, if it abutted on to the sea, by a public highway. It seems to make sense in such circumstances not to attempt to take the highway into the country park but to enable the local authority concerned to establish facilities on the foreshore, thus meeting the purposes of the Clause. That is why subsection (3) is included.
The other consequential Amendments are primarily a tidying up process to bring into the Clause matters formerly


contained in Clause 6. We have made a saving for works which might be in contravention of Section 34 of the Coast Protection Act, 1949—that is, works detrimental to navigation. It will be clear why this was necessary. We have also provided that byelaws made under this subsection will have the same effect as any made under Section 106 of the 1949 Act. There is provision in the Schedule for appeals to be made to the Minister if there should be any disputes between the local authority wishing to establish a country park and any other statutory body with an interest. In the Clause and the consequential Amendments we have not only carried out the undertaking given to the hon. Lady but have also improved the drafting and general layout of this portion of the Bill.

Mr. H. P. G. Channon: The whole House is indebted to the Minister of State for tabling the Clause. It is also indebted to my learned Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devon-port (Dame Joan Vickers) for raising this issue in Committee. The only point I wish to raise is one which has been brought to my attention by my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) and by the Yacht and Motor Boat Association, which is a little worried lest there is some intention of using the byelaw powers contained in subsection (5) to impose rigid byelaws and a system of registration for yachts and motor boats. I do not imagine that that is the Government's intention, at any rate for yachts. It would be helpful if the hon. Lady could confirm that no such byelaw powers would empower local authorities to do this sort of thing under the Clause. Subject to that, I am sure that the Clause will be generally acceptable.

Mr. John Pardoe: welcome the Clause and its recognition of the importance of water as a means of recreation. I congratulate the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devon-port (Dame Joan Vickers) on having raised this matter in Committee. The Clause is of immense importance to the West Country, particularly Cornwall which is almost entirely surrounded by water—not quite, unfortunately.
One or two questions arise on the Clause. It is of great importance to the small boat building industry. Will the

financial powers under Clause 26 as related to this new Clause apply to the creation of dams to create boating lakes—not inland boating lakes, but boating lakes which are part of estuaries running into the sea? I am thinking particularly of creeks that need to be dammed to provide an adequate level of water for boating. The North Cornwall coast suffers from heavy tides and normal boating in the open sea is not easy. It is of great importance to us that we should be able from time to time to dam up the odd creek, and even some river estuaries, to provide such facilities.
5.15 p.m.
Where fishing is both an industry and a recreation, how, under the Clause, will it be possible to separate the two? I am thinking particularly of lobster and shark fishing which are an industry but which, during the summer season, are also a leisure-time facility. For instance, would the sheds that fishermen use for storing their pots, and which are part of recreational facilities for tourists, be eligible for this kind of assistance?
What would happen in the case of beaches which are held by the local authority or by the National Trust, to be dangerous because of falling rocks and which are at present sealed off from the public? Would means of access become eligible for grants? Would it be possible for financial help to be given, to open up such beaches completely? I am thinking again of a local spot, a place called Bedruthan Steps which is owned by the National Trust. It is one of the largest areas of sand anywhere in the United Kingdom and probably in Europe. Unfortunately, because of the crumbling rocks, the steps have fallen away and the National Trust has seen fit to exercise its authority to seal off the whole area. I have raised this matter with the National Trust, which has told me that it has a responsibility to shield the public from falling rocks and that this is why it does not wish to renew the access. How far does the Minister of State think that local authorities have a moral duty to save us from ourselves? Should not we be allowed to walk on beaches, in spite of the danger of falling rocks, provided that some warning is given?
I come now to the forms of recreational facilities which are specifically laid


out in the Clause. Is water ski-ing included as one of these? Does it come under bathing or boating, or has it been omitted? Are surfing and malibou boarding included in this open air recreation? I am sorry to be a little parochial, but this is of immense importance to the whole of the north Cornish area and I should like to know whether it is included.
My final question relates to the bathing facilities. Presumably oily and dirty beaches mitigate against good bathing facilities. Would the cleaning of beaches be eligible for grant under Clause 26 in relation to this new Clause?

Dame Joan Vickers: I thank the hon. Lady for the trouble she has taken about my Amendment. Little did I think that the small Amendment I tabled would grow to such a magnificent size and cover so many important points. What the Minister of State has done will be a great asset to people in country parks. It will prove to be of benefit particularly to coastal areas.

Mr. Peter Mills: I welcome the Clause, and particularly subsection (2) under which authorities will have power to carry out such works as they regard as necessary
for facilitating the use of the waters…
and so on. Although they form a great holiday area, North Cornwall and North Devon suffer from a lack of easy boating facilities because of problems created by the tide and the exposed coast. Many visitors come to the area, but I am sure that we lose a good many because we have not the facilities for boating which so many people want nowadays. People who enjoy sailing and boating will usually go to South Devon, where the facilities are easier, rather than to North Devon.
I welcome the Clause, therefore, because local authorities will have a chance to remedy this situation. I should like to see the whole of the North Devon and North Cornwall coast made into an area where sailing and fishing could readily be enjoyed. This may well be possible under the Clause. As the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) said, there are certain areas where a dam might be put down to provide boating facilities. An excellent inland lake

could be made on the Torridge in my constituency, which would be of tremendous benefit to the area and meet the need of the modern generation of people who enjoy sailing.
Another matter of interest to me, on which the Clause may be of value, is that in the South-West there has been opposition to the building of reservoirs. If it is possible for reservoirs to be used for recreation as well, some of the opposition, which is very real, might be overcome. Reservoirs could be opened up for fishing and, perhaps, even for boating.
I hope that the local authorities will use the powers under the Clause and take steps to introduce some of the facilities which the hon. Member for Cornwall, North and I have mentioned. In passing—the hon. Gentleman will not like my saying this—I have in mind that the Clause may help where there is the possibility of a reservoir being demolished or done away with. If the dam is taken away, all the enjoyment which people have experienced, as I have—

Mr. Pardoe: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am about to use my influence to ensure that he will be able to fish in the Tamar Lake for ever and anon.

Mr. Mills: I am glad to hear that. I was thinking of that lake in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. It seemed that it was to be done away with, which would be a sad event. Perhaps the local authority will be able to stop any such move after the new Clause has come into effect. I and many others have enjoyed the pleasures which the reservoir has given over many years, and I now hope that that little problem will be cleared up. I welcome the Clause, which should be of great benefit in a good many areas, particularly areas such as mine.

Mrs. White: I am delighted that the Clause has had a warm welcome and that our good intentions are appreciated.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) raised the question of byelaws. The local authority is under an obligation to consult the Commission, and I am sure that the interests to which he referred will be borne very much in mind in the formulation of any possible byelaws. No


suggestion has reached me that the interests to which he referred will be in any way adversely affected by the sort of bye-laws possible here.
I emphasise that the Clause refers only to country parks. I suspect that some hon. Members who have not had the advantage of reading our proceedings in Committee do not entirely appreciate that these powers will be brought into effect only where a local authority has decided to establish a country park. In the beautiful parts of the country represented by the hon. Members for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) and for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills), I am sure that various local authorities may well wish to establish country parks. The Clause relates only to such areas.

Mr. Peter Mills: Surely, it would cover land held by the National Trust—vast areas of land?

Mrs. White: Not necessarily. Indeed, probably not. There is a new provision in the Bill under which a local authority may seek to establish a country park not necessarily in its own area. Such a park could be established, with the proper consent and consultation, in the area of another local authority. These powers are to extend the possibilities for country parks and for them only.

Mr. Channon: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her answer to the point which I raised. I am sure that the people concerned will be grateful. If some worry still remains, perhaps she will be good enough to look at any representations made to her on the matter.

Mrs. White: Certainly. If I find that there is more in it than I have indicated so far, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and let him know.
I shall be happy to write to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North on some of the detailed points which he raised, again always within the context of country parks. Had the hon. Gentleman given a little notice of some of the detailed matters, including lobster and shark fishing, one might have been in a better position to reply. It is largely a question of circumstances. A country park will be for recreation, not to promote commercial fishing. Therefore, anything provided must come within the ambit of amenity or

recreation. The question of access to beaches and so on will depend upon the area concerned being included in a country park, and also on financial priorities. There will not be endless money for all the things one would like to do, and in setting up a country park the local authority will have to decide how best to spend its money in the general interest. Where a fine beach was otherwise not fully usable, it might be thought that the provision of access was one of the best things to do. But, plainly, this would have to be a matter for careful consideration in relation to the financial priorities.
The list of proposed recreational activities in the Clause is not intended to be final. It makes clear that the recreations provided for shall include sailing, boating, bathing and fishing, but subsection (2) refers also to "other forms of recreation", which could, where suitable and desirable, include water skiing, for example. We had various suggestions made in Committee—kiting behind boats, hovercraft and all kinds of esoteric recreations. These will be matters for consideration by the promoting authority.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause No. 2.

TREE PRESERVATION ORDERS: COMPENSATION UNDER PLANNING ACTS.

In section 125(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962, so far as it relates to tree preservation orders, and in section 26(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1947 (both of which sections provide for compensation for refusal of consent under tree preservation orders) for the words 'damage or expenditure' there shall be substituted loss or damage '.—[Mr. Skeffington]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Government Amendment 43, in Clause 20, page 22, line 8, leave out "damage or expenditure" and insert "loss or damage", is consequential and may be discussed at the same time.

Mr. Skeffington: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I am much obliged.
The new Clause was put down as a result of suggestions made by the Valuation Office. Hon. Members will recall that Clause 20 provides a new and welcome form of compensation which has not hitherto been available when tree preservation orders were made. For the future, one envisages local authorities often making tree preservation orders not in respect of single trees but much more in respect of whole woodlands. This is a satisfactory way of allowing woods to remain in private ownership, with some return, while at the same time preserving features of amenity which may be very important. But it seemed unfair that under the existing procedure, if the authority made a tree preservation order with certain directions as to the species to be planted, which could be of less commercial value or of much slower growth, this could result in the owner's losing quite a considerable sum. The intention is to give compensation of the difference between the potential value of proceeds for an advance under Section 4 of the Forestry Act, 1967 and the potential value in view of the conditions imposed by the local authority. The difference will be made up by compensation.
5.30 p.m.
It has been suggested, although this is not absolutely certain, that the words we had used, which we had taken from Section 125 of the 1962 Act, referring to "damage or expenditure", might not be wide enough to cover the case where there was not the mere refusal to fell, but one where the tree preservation order was based on a direction as to the species or the conditions under which the timber was to be grown. A very simple example is that of an investment of about £100 which the owner had thought might give him a return of £20 in five or 10 years, but because of the direction given the £20 does not materialise or is limited to £5. If this would have qualified for an advance under Section 4 of the Forestry Act under the original scheme, the difference the damage the owner has suffered, as a result of the direction can be made up by the provisions of Clause 20. The Amendment is to make certain that our intention is carried out. The new formula is considered to be wider.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: The Amendment is acceptable to our side of the House and, I am sure that every hon. Member will agree that it is sensible. We are grateful to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for the way he has explained it to us, and we support it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now come to New Clause No. 3 and the Amendments to it, the Amendment in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon): In line 2, at end insert:
Provided that in the case of a footpath the prior consent of the owner or occupier of the land must be obtained.
and the Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson): In line 3, leave out 'remain mounted on' and insert 'ride'.
In line 4, after foot' insert:
'in circumstances which would or might interfere with the rights of any person on foot or endanger his safety'.
The Amendment in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham has been selected for Division if required.

New Clause No. 3.

RIDING OF PEDAL BICYCLES ON FOOTPATHS AND BRIDLEWAYS.

(1) Any member of the public shall have, as a right of way, the right to ride a pedal bicycle on any footpath or bridleway.

(2) It shall be unlawful for a person on a footpath or bridleway to remain mounted on a bicycle when passing or overtaking any person on foot, and a person contravening this subsection shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.

(3) On a bridleway subsection (2) above shall apply to the passing or overtaking of any person on horseback or riding a horse, or any driven animals, as it applies to the passing or overtaking of a person on foot.

(4) Subsection (1) of this section has effect subject to any byelaws made by a highways authority or local authority.

(5) The rights conferred by this section shall not affect the obligations of the highway authority, or of any other person, as respects the maintenance of the footpath or bridleway, and this section shall not create any obligation to do anything to facilitate the use of the footpath or bridleway by cyclists.

(6) Subsection (1) of this section shall not affect any definition of 'footpath' or bridle-way ' in this or any other Act, and 'horse' and 'horseback' shall be construed in accordance with section 27(6) of the Act of 1949.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The House will be aware of the recommendations of the Gosling Committee. As I indicated in Standing Committee, as soon as we had an advance interim report of paragraph 71, which referred to cyclists, it seemed to us to contain suggestions which were fair and reasonable. The cyclist is one of the travellers on the highway who is very vulnerable, and it seemed to us right that his status should be recognised. He has now, in general, no right under the definition of footpaths and rights of way to which the public have access. It was therefore thought that the recommendations should be accepted, and that is why we have tabled the Clause.
An essential feature of it implicit in the recommendations, which I think are generally accepted, is that while these vulnerable and rather neglected highway travellers will get the advantage of being able to use paths they should not do so in preference to the foot walkers for which the paths were originally designed and are maintained. Consequently, there is a requirement which has caused a certain amount of comment—and certainly the cyclists' organisations have not liked it—that when passing a person on the footpath or bridleway the cyclist should dismount. I imagine that, in any interpretation, common sense would be used. If the footpath is broad there is no need for cyclists to get off, but if it is narrow and the cyclist might encounter 20 or 30 people as he goes flying along on a Saturday afternoon it might be quite dangerous for children or old people. Therefore, I do not think that it is an unreasonable requirement of cyclists.
It may well be that cyclists will not take much advantage of the provision, but that is a matter for them. Many footpaths are not good cycling territory, particularly if one has to keep getting off and humping a bicycle over a style. The Committee made the recommendation after hearing evidence and considering these matters, and it seemed sensible to

us. The cycling organisations welcome the opportunity of having their status made quite clear, though they do not like the prohibition. But on the whole we think it is right, since footpaths and bridleways are in the main for walkers or horse-riders.
It may be that there are short sections of paths which are much used where it would be wrong to have this general provision. In that case there is nothing to prevent the local authority, under the bye-law powers of the 1933 Act, which are very wide, from making a prohibition order to prevent cyclists going either on part of the path or the whole path. No. doubt there will be cases where the local authority will want to do this. But that is a matter for them and certainly not one for Whitehall.
With the qualifications I have set out, the Clause gives cyclists the opportunity to get off the roads to places where they will be safer, and they will enjoy the right to do so in circumstances which are not at the expense of the walker or the horse-rider. I hope that the Clause will commend itself to the House.

Mr. R. H. Turton: I am rather worried by the Clause. I gather from the Gosling Report that it arises from pity, which I never think is a very good foundation for legislation.
A right of way in the form of a footpath is of itself ill-designed for the cyclist. In many parts of the country the footpath is the way that will be used by the old people, and where there are prosecutions of cyclists riding on footpaths, which we have had in many parts of the country, it is usually the very young who are riding their bicycles and terrifying the old people who use the footpaths concerned. The hon. Gentleman has included in the Clause a provision which he claims is for the protection of the old people, and we shall come to that later.
My main objection to the Clause is that I believe that it will interfere with the privileges and rights of old people who use footpaths and who regard them as their special, safe way of going about the country. The next problem is that there is another type of footpath, very common in my constituency, the path going right through farmland, having done so from time immemorial, which is very valuable


for those who want to go from parish to parish or for ramblers who want to enjoy the countryside. It is wrong that that privilege should be interfered with by the cyclist.
I have no animosity against the cyclist, and I do not agree with the Gosling Report that he is not welcome on the roads, except for the motorway, trunk roads and other major roads. The cyclist is still very welcome on the unclassified and ordinary country roads. It is wrong that he should be encouraged to invade the right of the rambler, the pedestrian and the old people.
Many country rights of way have stiles or even a kissing gate at the end of a path. What will happen there? How will people deal with a bicycle? Perhaps the hon. Lady will come in on this and tell us how one is to deal with a bicycle at a kissing gate, because there will surely be a certain amount of difficulty in surmounting that obstacle.

Mrs. White: We usually find a way.

Mr. Turton: Quite clearly, this right cannot be granted in all cases. The hon. Gentleman refers to the byelaws. That may be all right in the more urban areas but it does not apply to the more rural parts. During Committee stage, the hon. Gentleman referred to footpaths on precipitous hillsides where the local authority might interfere. Surely the owner should be allowed to interfere when a footpath is going through his own cornfield, as many go across cornfields in my constituency. It is rather hard that the owner really has no redress under the Clause unless he can persuade the local authority to publish a byelaw. Presumably, in any case, it will usually be the county council, which is a fairly distant authority for a small farmer who has a footpath through his field.
The other problem is one on which I want to give the House the benefit of my magisterial experience. This is on the question of the proviso. If a cyclist sees someone using a footpath he must immediately dismount—which I presume means that he must get off the saddle, for otherwise he will be guilty of an offence. I have frequently sat in court listening to evidence given about a young person using a bicycle on a footway.

In all cases the defence is, "I was not on the bicycle".
It is usually the evidence of the police constable that while it was true that at the time the young person reached the constable he had got off the saddle and was riding on the pedal, a cyclist can go with the same velocity on the pedal as on the saddle. Usually the court has been able to convict because it has noticed that, before he passed or overtook the constable, the cyclist was sitting in the saddle. As I see it, the Clause as drafted has a perfect let-out for everyone who wants to use it. All a cyclist has to do is to get out of the saddle, perhaps progressing at even greater velocity with his feet on the pedal when passing the person or the horse. I ask the Government to reconsider this.
I do not want to be pedantic, but again, in passing or overtaking, presumably the person who charges an old lady has neither passed nor overtaken but has merely struck her and is not, therefore, committing an offence. The Clause has been hastily drafted and is ill-considered. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it, perhaps to reintroduce it later after reconsideration. I am certain that, as drafted, it will cause a great deal of confusion.
There is a minor point. Many pedal cycles have what is called a "supplementary engine". Are they pedal cycles within the meaning of the Act? If such pedal cycles with supplementary engines are to chug along cornfields, they will be highly unpopular, and I do not think that that is what the Government desire. This is a bad Clause. It originates from pity and not from reason and requires to be drastically amended if it is to survive.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Carol Johnson: It will be quickly apparent that I approach the new Clause from a rather different standpoint from that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), but I agree with a number of the points he has raised. I give a general welcome to subsection (1) which, for the first time, recognises the need of a pedal cyclist to have a legal right on footpaths and bridleways—for him, as my hon. Friend said, to have a


status. But I can only give modified welcome to the Clause as a whole.
The first point has been emphasised by the right hon. Gentleman. The Clause has been drafted so hurriedly that the draftsman has ignored a large number of practical considerations, some of them instanced by the right hon. Gentleman. In this connection, it would have been helpful if my hon. Friend had consulted the Cyclists Touring Club, the body principally concerned on behalf of cyclists generally.
In Committee, we had a discussion on an Amendment I moved dealing with the rights of pedal cyclists on long-distance footpaths. Reference was made to the fact that the position in relation to cyclists and footpaths was being considered by the Gosling Committee. My hon. Friend gave an assurance that he would consider the point raised. He said:
…we"—
the Ministry—
are still in contact with the various bodies…".—[REPORT, Standing Committee A, 5th March, 1968; c. 1359.]
In these circumstances, I think it regrettable that the Ministry did not get in touch with the Cyclists Touring Club to find out whether it had any views on the Government's proposals. It would have helped in relation to some of the practical considerations.
My first and main objection to the Clause is against the absolute nature of subsections (2) and (3), which make it imperative in all cases for cyclists to dismount. Let us look at the practical implications. If a cyclist meets a pedestrian going in the opposite direction and gets off his machine, that makes the passing more inconvenient if the path is narrow. It might be much simpler to stop, remain on the machine with one foot on the ground and allow the pedestrian to pass.
If the cyclist wants to overtake a pedestrian, he must catch up with the walker and must then dismount. But by this time a fast walker will be some yards ahead again. The cyclist will then have to run, pushing his bicycle until he catches up again, and then repeat the process. It could be a tedious process which could lead to a new fable of the

walker and the cyclist, ending with an appropriate quotation such as, "And panting time toiled after him in vain".
Conditions will vary considerably on different paths and bridleways and the circumstances operating at the time of meeting or according to the nature of the path or bridleway may seem irrelevant.
In this connection there are literally hundreds of paths throughout the country which are so wide that a cyclist could overtake or pass a pedestrian without being close to him at all. What the draftsman obviously had in mind was a narrow path, where its width would necessitate some provision about priority. Need the cyclist dismount in all cases? Surely it would often be sufficient if he just stopped when meeting a pedestrian or horseman going the other way, without actually getting off the bicycle? That might make the passing easier.
I would emphasise that the C.T.C. and cyclists generally are well content to accept the views of the Gosling Committee, which is that walkers should have prior right of passage and that cyclists should use the footpath and bridleway with:
Proper care for the safety of walkers and other users.
This new Clause goes much farther than that. I would refer to the way in which the same problem is dealt with on pedestrian crossings. Under existing regulations the pedestrian has precedence and I suggest that this principle might apply in the case of footpaths and bridleways.
All that is needed to carry out the recommendation of the Gosling Committee and to avoid putting an unnecessary and irrelevant burden on to the cyclist would be to limit the new Clause to cases where the pedestrian or horseman might be prejudiced or in danger if the cyclist did not dismount. The rights of horsemen and pedestrians should be given precedence. I urge upon the Minister that it is unnecessary to impose any greater restraint.
I have drafted an Amendment designed to cover the objections that I have outlined. Although I do not expect the Minister to accept my wording, I hope that he will consider the implications, both of what I have said and what has been said by the right hon. Member for


Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). It would be undesirable if we were to add to the Statute Book a provision giving cyclists a legal right, for the first time, including unhappy conditions governing that new right which are impracticable, unnecessary and unrealistic.
The Amendment tabled by the Opposition also seems to be impracticable and unrealistic. It says that:
provided that in the case of a footpath the prior consent of the owner or occupier of the land must be obtained.
This will surely involve the cyclist contemplating a journey in the gravest possible difficulties. He will first of all have to obtain consent beforehand or, alternatively, there will have to be some provisions whereby paths become either paths with consent or without consent.
That will necessarily mean a proliferation of notices and the practical difficulties of enforcing such a provision would make it impossible. For these reasons I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will recognise that the new Clause is not satisfactory in many respects and it ought to be reconsidered. Perhaps in another place some of the obvious defects can be remedied.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: I would like to add my plea to those who have asked the Parliamentary Secretary to take this new Clause away and look at it again. Most of the points I wanted to make have already been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and there are now only two points I wish to make. First it is clear from paragraph 72 of the Gosling Committee that that Paragraph is drafted with an eye on footpaths in or around a town or houses. It says that the local authorities will be able to make byelaws prohibiting the use of cycles on footpaths in particular areas. My right hon. Friend spoke of footpaths going over farmland. I cannot believe that a particular area for which a local authority is likely to make a byelaw would be a footpath going through a farm. The farmers of the area are not likely to ask the local authority to pass a byelaw to say that cyclists would be welcome on that footpath.
There is the practical problem that if a footpath is supposed to be three or four

feet wide, and one has the business of people dismounting to pass each other, even if it is only one bicycle in one direction and one in another, that, coming across a field of corn, will make a considerably wider path than the four feet normally regarded as the width of a footpath. Apart from that, cyclists go about the countryside, on the roads, in large numbers and frequently one cannot pass them in one's motor car because there are so many of them. If they go on footpaths supposed to be four feet wide, across a field of corn, grave difficulties will arise.
My second point is what seems to be an innocent question, which might be easily answered by the Parliamentary Secretary. What is a footpath? If he has looked at the interpretation Clause of the Countryside Bill he will find, in Clause 39(2):
'bridleway' and 'footpath' have the meaning given by section 295(1) of the Highways Act, 1959;
Section 295(1) of the Highways Act, 1959 defines "footpath" as:
…a highway over which the public have a right of way on foot only, not being a footway;
It seems to me that if the new Clause goes through it would be possible to ride one's bicycle from here to Victoria Station on a footpath. If that is so, it is not what he really wants the new Clause to mean. I would suggest that it might be as well to have another think about this.

Mr. Pardoe: I am not unsympathetic to cyclists—I am unsympathetic towards this new Clause. I ride a cycle and am only too well aware of the dangers of riding cycles in traffic. I do not think that that is sufficient reason to give to cyclists what has been for a very long time the privilege of people on foot. There are real dangers involved. The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Mal-ton (Mr. Turton) mentioned the dangers to old people. I have grave worries about the dangers to children.
The footpath is the one place where one can, as a family, go out for a walk and allow very young children to go on ahead without supervision. With cyclists coming round sharp corners it would be quite impossible for them to stop, to get off, and allow pedestrians


to pass. There is the likelihood of increased danger to farm animals, particularly where footpaths run through farmyards.
The great majority of footpaths are not suited to cycling, not only because of the terrain which they cross, and their width, but also because of kissing gates and stiles. Since I am convinced that the great majority of footpaths are unsuited to cycling, it is nonsense to pass legislation which entitles people to ride bicycles on footpaths and then ask local authorities to pass byelaws to prevent them from doing so. The number of footpaths on which they will be able to ride bicycles is very small. This is the wrong way to go about it. Why not allow local authorities to pass byelaws permitting cyclists to ride on the footpaths? This would save a great deal of local government time and our time.
6.0 p.m.
There is the considerable difficulty of enforcement. I know how difficult it will be to prosecute when a cyclist comes tearing round the corner on a footpath and nearly knocks one's children over and half kills one's dog. How will one find evidence? From where will the witnesses come? How many policemen patrol country footpaths to enable one to bring forward a prosecution?
If we add the Clause to the Bill, we shall have a law which is almost impossible to enforce. We should have nothing to do with laws which are almost impossible to enforce.

Mr. Skeffington: I have been impressed by some of the points which have been made. In our desire to be helpful we promised hon. Members to include something on Report and perhaps that Clause had been hastily drafted. We studied very closely that cyclists evidence.
I suggest that we might have another look at that Clause, particularly subsection (2), to which my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson) referred. He had some quite justified fun. But even if that Clause were accepted as it is now, it would be much better than the present position. A great deal happens which has no legal basis or for which there are no procedures. We still adhere to the principle that the basic recommendation

of the Gosling Committee is right, and we intend to reintroduce it in another place. We shall look at the priorities which we think it right to give to horse riders.

Dame Joan Vickers: That debate has been devoted to cycling. I should like to bring out the question of horse riding. I should like the hon. Gentleman to look into that question.

Hon. Members: It is not in order.

Mr. Channon: I am sure that the House is grateful to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for saying that he will withdraw the Clause, and I am certain that we shall give him permission to do so. This is reminiscent of the Clause on bulls which we discussed in Committee, but which was generally unacceptable to any section of opinion in the Committee.
However, we should not let this opportunity pass without making it clear that it is not just the details of the Clause to which many of us are opposed. We oppose the general idea of the Gosling Report that pedal cyclists should be able to ride on footpaths. Perhaps I have the support of the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) in that. If so, he is another valuable ally. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary should not be under the impression that there is not a large body of opinion in the House which is opposed to the principle as well as the wording of the Clause. I, too, could have made the speech of the hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson). Cyclists have told me that they seriously think that if the Clause were passed in this form there would be a grave danger of traffic jams on footpaths, because there would be no overtaking whatsoever.
I hope that the Government will bring an open mind to bear on the Clause before coming to a decision in another place. We shall have an opportunity later to debate the matter should their Lordships pass such a Clause. There is serious objection to the Clause, particularly in the light of the grave inconvenience which it would cause. It proposes a fundamental change which is not supported. The Government should not be under any illusion about the feeling in the House.

Mr. Peter Mills: I am glad that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that he would consider this matter again. I am not happy about the Clause. I do not see why there need be any legislation at all on this matter. Surely this is a matter of common sense and courtesy. People in the countryside know that one can ride a bicycle on certain footpaths and that one cannot do so on others. I do not believe that there is any need for legislation on this point.
There are occasions when it is right for people to ride bicycles on footpaths. The village postman, with his heavy load, may have a short cut to certain hamlets or farmhouses. It is right that he should be able to cycle along a footpath so that he can deliver his mail and save time. Why should he get off his bicycle when it is heavily laden with letters and parcels? Surely it is common sense and courtesy for a person walking on the footpath to step back and say, "How do, maister".
I never heard anything so ridiculous as the suggestion that legislation is needed on matters like this. This is a waste of the time of the House. We are taught courtesy at an early age. If an old lady comes along, one get's off one's bicycle and allows her to pass. The farmworker whose only method of carrying things is a bicycle may have a very large sack between the frame of the bicycle. He has every right to use the footpath.
The Minister must think again about this matter. However, I must say to my hon. Friends that I do not like their proposed Amendment in line 2—
Provided that in the case of a footpath the prior consent of the owner or occupier of the land must be obtained.

Mr. Channon: It was tabled only as a second best. We should certainly prefer to see the Clause dropped altogether.

Mr. Mills: I am glad to hear that. There is a mile of footpath and road combined leading to my farm, and then the footpath continues. Just imagine on a Sunday morning or at some other time, when I was hoping to have a little peace and quiet, having a queue of people asking whether they can ride a bicycle along that footpath. It is utterly ridiculous if this is the stage that we have reached. I hope that the Clause will be dispensed with entirely. If the Minister would like to issue a pamphlet in an

endeavour to teach people common courtesy in the countryside and how to use footpaths, I should back him wholeheartedly.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: I wish to make three points.
First—and perhaps this is a minority view—to me, cycles are like motor cars. They have associations with urban life. Seeing bicycles in the countryside is incongruous, and I find them very offensive. This is a view which is perhaps not shared by the majority of people, but there is a sizeable minority of people who like to feel that in the countryside they are free from the associations of urban life. Things like cycles and motor cars are associated with urban life, and some people are as horrified as I am on finding such excresences in the midst of the countryside.
Secondly, if cyclists are to have rights of access, it will be much more difficult to provide adequate stiles and gates for it. P think that I am being realistics in saying that it would not be done. Farmers would not replace stiles with gates. Therefore, the cycles would have to be carried over the hedge or wall, and the hedge or wall might be damaged as a result.
This leads me to my third point. This would alienate to a certain extent the agricultural community. When I go back to the High Peak to explain the provisions of the Bill to the local branches of the N.F.U., which I intend to do, they will not be very happy at my telling them that they not only have responsibility for maintaining stiles and gates to meet the needs of walkers, but also the needs of cyclists. I know that the Minister is concerned about the balance which he strikes with the local communities, and this is a consideration he might properly bear in mind.

Mr. John Smith: I do not wish to detain the House long. Had the undertaking been to withdraw the Cause I should not have spoken, but I understand the Clause is simply to be reconsidered or redrafted.
One or two points should be made before this is done. We all recognise the desire of cyclists to get away from dangerous and over-crowded roads. Indeed, I am attracted by the idea of


long-distance routes for them. However, to add this Clause at this late stage is precipitate and unrealistic. Examples have been given of the way in which it is unrealistic, but another example is subsection (2) which says:
'It shall be unlawful for a person on a footpath or bridleway to remain mounted on s bicycle when passing or overtaking any person on foot"—
or a horse—
'and a person contravening this subsection shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £20.
Is it really envisaged that we shall have cases in the courts concerning people who have cycled past a horse, and are young people to be fined £20 for doing it?
The Parliamentary Secretary in Committee said that walkers must have "utter priority". Utter priority is a high degree of priority, but I do not see cyclists flinging themselves into hedges or taking to ploughed land to avoid pedestrians. We all know that it will be the pedestrian who has to get out of the way.
Further, is it a good plan to introduce legislation so that we have one rule of the road on the road and another rule of the road on the path? On the road the pedestrian gets out of the way of the cyclist but on the path it is to be the cyclist who gets out of the way of the pedestrian. Even if this complex notion can be got into the heads of the very young and the very old, who make up a large proportion of the users of paths, there will be many genuine cases of doubt whether the cyclist and the pedestrian are on a road or a path. Some paths are described on the definitive map as "roads used as public paths." Many paths look like roads—for example, farm access roads—and many roads look like paths—for example, green lanes.
Another point which has not been mentioned is the danger to stock. Many cyclists will leave their bicycles and go for a stroll. Indeed, that may be their purpose in cycling to that point. As hon. Members who have attended picnics know, cattle are interested in anything new in a field, and a bicycle is a dangerous object to leave in a field full of stock.
One of the arguments advanced for banning horses from footpaths—and I am relieved that we do not have to go into that—was that such use damages the

surface of the path. This argument also applies to bicycles. Cycling along a path with a thin covering of grass will soon remove the grass, whereas use by pedestrians will not remove it.
6.15 p.m.
There will be an inevitable demand for expenditure and adaptation of paths for cyclists. There will be a demand for the removal of stiles and "improvement" of the surfaces of paths and a general pressure towards that urbanisation which, in my view, is endemic in the Bill, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for the High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson).
This is one of the contentious recommendations of the Gosling Committee. The Report of the Gosling Committee was signed only 14 days ago on 26th March, and it will have been in the hands of the public for an even shorter time. The matter demands far more thought and public discussion before legislation is introduced. It is precipitate to introduce it now.
For example, even the cyclists are not satisfied. The Cyclists Touring Club, which is an old and honourable body, in a letter to the Parliamentary Secretary, says:
The Cyclists' Touring Club should have been consulted before any new legislation was drafted. That has not been done, however, with the result that paragraphs (2) and (3) of the new Clause as drafted are really quite unacceptable.
So this new Clause does not please those whom it is designed to please.
The conflicting interests of pedestrians and cyclists are much too imcompatible to be dealt with so quickly and summarily without causing a great deal of trouble. However much we sympathise with the cyclist and however much we admire him in his unending struggle with the forces of nature, I feel that this Clause should be withdrawn.

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause No. 19.

AVOIDANCE OF POLLUTION.

In the exercise of their functions under this Act and the Act of 1949 it shall be the duty of the Commission, the Forestry Commission


and local authorities to have due regard to the protection against pollution of any water, whether on the surface or underground, which belongs to statutory water undertakers or which statutory water undertakers are for the time being authorised to take.—[Mrs. White.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mrs. White: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This again is consequent upon an undertaking given in Committee to the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). He expressed some apprehension about the possibility of increasing the danger of pollution of water because the general purposes of the Bill are to increase the use of the countryside and consequently the number of persons who might come into areas where this danger could exist. I said at the time that the Government were sympathetic to the purposes of the new Clause, which he withdrew. We have, therefore, carried out our undertaking by laying a positive duty upon
…the Commission, the Forestry Commission and local authorities to have due regard to the protection against pollution of any water, whether on the surface or underground, which belongs to statutory water undertakers or which statutory water undertakers are for the time being authorised to take.
I believe that the new Clause will be welcome to the British Waterworks Association, whose anxieties led to the earlier attempt to deal with the matter in Committee.
I do not need to elaborate upon this. We have drawn the attention of hon. Members who were on the Committee to the fact that there are powers in existence for the prevention of pollution which are exercisable by river authorities; and statutory water undertakers also have powers to make byelaws for the protection of their sources against pollution. Under the Bill we are proposing a more extended and intensive use of the countryside and we are concerned that the Commission, the Forestry Commission and local authorities should clearly understand that this is one of the objects to which they must pay regard in any of their undertakings.

Mr. Channon: I am grateful to the Minister of State for putting down the new Clause, which substantially meets the point I raised on Committee. I have

only one slight worry about it. I must point out to the House that the new Clause only appeared on Friday. I do not think there will be any points for me to pursue at a later stage, but I would not like to give an absolute guarantee about that as I have not had time to consider the wording.
The statutory water undertakings have not had full time to consider the implications of the Clause, although it is 99 per cent. certain that they are happy. Subject to that word of warning, I very much welcome the new Clause. It is absolutely vital that nothing in the Countryside Bill should detract from the importance of preventing the pollution of water. I am grateful to the Minister of State for having moved the new Clause.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: As my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) said, the Clause went down only on Friday and, although I support it, I must warn the Minister of State that I am not entirely satisfied that some activities of the Forestry Commission on peat soils will not, in the opinion of most river boards, be regarded as activities which pollute rivers. I refer to the undesirable habit of the Forestry Commission of planting on peat lands by deep ploughing. In areas of very deep peat this is a growing practice where it is intended to grow citrus fruits very quickly. The practice is to plough out a furrow anything up to 2 ft. deep by 18 in. across the top. Whenever there is a heavy spate the effect is to expose large areas of raw peat to sudden rainfall, and what were moderately peaty rivers become extremely sour peaty rivers.
The Minister of State may have been the interesting statistics on the effect of peat on fisheries published by a research station in Northern Ireland. The statistics show that peat has a most depressing effect on fisheries. If the peat content of a river suddenly rises to any great degree, the fish cease to have any sporting value. They go to the bottom of the river and are quite miserable for three or four days. I am encouraged that, as a result of the new Clause, it may be possible to curb some of the destructive activities of the Forestry Commission.

Mr. Peter Mills: I welcome the Clause, but the Minister must


watch this matter very carefully. It lays the Commission open to the problem of the pollution of rivers by the red soil that we have in the South-West. If this is the sort of pollution for which the Commission, the Forestry Commission and others can be prosecuted, it will lay them open to considerable trouble. With the modern drainage systems, our rivers, particularly in the South-West where we have red soil, are being polluted and discoloured at an alarming rate. Of course, I agree that the normal sort of pollution ought to be stopped. The people interested in fishing and such other activities might tackle the Commission and the Forestry Commission on this point. It may sound a minor point and a rather stupid one, but I can assure the House that with our red soil the rivers are polluted to an alarming degree. I hope the Minister is aware of this danger.

Mrs. White: The two points just made illustrate some of the matters which will have to be borne in mind. We are concerned only with pollution that might arise from activities of the bodies referred to in the new Clause, and with no other type of pollution. Pollution is normally something which endangers health. I am not sure whether the happiness of fish is within the legal definition of pollution, but the fact that attention has been drawn to the matter will be noticed by the Forestry Commission.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause No. 4

NATIONAL PARKS JOINT PLANNING BOARD: EXPENSES OF MEMBERS OF OFFICERS

(1) This section has effect as respects any National Park joint planning board, that is to say a joint planning board constituted under section 2 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962 for an area which consist of or includes any part of a National Park.

(2) Any such board may defray—
(a) any travelling or other expenses reasonably incurred by or an behalf of members or officers of the board, or of any committee of the board, in attending a conference or meeting convened by one or more local planning authorities whose areas include the whole or part of a National Park, or by any association of such authorities, being a con

ference or meeting for the purpose of discussing any matter connected with the discharge of functions exercisable by local planning authorities in respect of National Parks;
(b) any travelling or other expenses reasonably incurred by or on behalf of members or officers of the board, or of any committee of the board, in making official or courtesy visits, whether inside or outside the United Kingdom, on behalf of the board;
(c) any expenses incurred in the reception and entertainment by way of official courtesy of distinguished persons residing in or visiting the board's area, and of persons representative of or connected with other local planning authorities or bodies concerned with matters relating to the countryside, whether inside or outside the United Kingdom, and in the supply of information to any such persons.

(3) In the case of a visit within the United Kingdom, the amount defrayed in respect of the expenses of a member of the board shall not exceed the payments which he would have been entitled to receive by way of travelling allowance or subsistence allowance under section 113 of the Local Government Act 1948 if the making of the visit had been an approved duty of that member within the meaning of that section.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Niall MacDermot): I beg to move. That the Clause be read a Second time.
The Clause honours an undertaking I gave to the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) on the Amendment he moved in Committee. The effect of the new Clause is to empower National Park joint planning boards to pay expenses incurred by members or officers attending conferences and making official or courtesy visits. The boards are also empowered to pay reasonable expenses associated with the reception and entertainment of distinguished persons. The new Clause covers all the points I undertook to cover.

Mr. Michael Jopling: I am grateful to the Minister of State for moving the Clause. It goes the whole way to meet the case I put during the Committee stage. The joint planning board in the Lake District have the greatest difficulty in suitably entertaining distinguished visitors from overseas. This came to a head when we were honoured by a visit by the Duke of Edinburgh in 1966, and it was necessary to go through the rigmarole under Section 228 of the Local Government


Act, 1933. The new Clause will make this procedure unnecessary, and we are grateful to the Minister for moving it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause No. 7

NATIONAL PARK WARDENS

(1) A local planning authority whose area consists of or includes the whole or any part of a National Park, may appoint such number of persons as may appear to the authority to be necessary or expedient to act as wardens as respects any land within the National Park which is subject to the provisions of section 193 of the Law of Property Act 1925, or as respects any waterway within the National Park in respect of which there is in force an Order in Council made under section 421(2) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894.

(2) The purposes for which wardens may be appointed by an authority under the immediately foregoing subsection are—
(a) as respects any land, to secure compliance with the provisions of section 193 of the Law of Property Act 1925, and of the Litter Act 1958, and with any byelaws made under any enactment by the authority or by any other local authority;
(b) as respects any waterway, to secure compliance with the provisions of the appropriate Order in Council made under section 421(2) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894;
(c) as respects any land or waterway, to advise and assist the public and to perform such other duties (if any) in relation to the land or waterway as the authority may determine.

(3) The Act of 1949 shall have effect as if the foregoing subsections formed part of section 92 of that Act and were inserted immediately after subsection (2) of that section.

(4) Subsection (2) of the said section 92 shall be amended by the substitution of the words 'under the foregoing subsection' in place of the words under this section' and subsection (3) of the said section 92 shall be amended by the addition after the words 'Part V of this Act' of the words 'or subject to the provisions of section 193 of the Law of Property Act 1925, or in respect of which there is in force an Order in Council made under section 421(2) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 '.—[Mr. Jopling.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Jopling: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
In my view the Clause is the most important one which the House has to consider at the Report stage on the

Countryside Bill. I moved a new Clause in Committee which proposed to extend the area of land in the country over which wardens could operate. That new Clause allowed wardens to operate over a much wider area than is at present allowed under the 1949 Act. The Government rejected it. I fear the debate was held rather late on a Tuesday afternoon, not many people were present, and there was little discussion. However, I hope this afternoon to elaborate the need to extend the area over which wardens can operate in national parks, and I hope the Government will accept the new Clause.
The wardens' service has proved to be extremely useful over the years, particularly in the Lake District. We now have in the Lake District four full-time wardens and 400 voluntary wardens. More are needed. We need more full-time wardens, as voluntary wardens are less helpful and less useful. Full-time wardens are by far the most important. The functions that wardens in the national parks are asked to perform are pre-eminently to advise visitors on routes, paths and places of interest, and in general to be as helpful as they can be to people who visit National Parks. There is also the need to control the behaviour of the more unruly minority, a very small minority, who come into the area. Finally, there is the function of supervision of bathing places and the supervision of speed limits on some lakes.
Experience in the Lake District over the last five or six years has shown that wardens are very well liked, they are most helpful to visitors and they are more than welcomed by residents in the National Park. We are not asking that wardens should have extra powers similar to those of the police or traffic wardens. This matter was referred to at Committee stage in column 991. Wardens should have the same powers as the ordinary citizen, and this is exactly what we ask. We are not asking for a new form of police to patrol the National Parks. We ask merely for more people who can perform these advisory functions, with no more powers than the ordinary citizen has. The draft Clause is specific on the control powers, and there is no suggestion in my new Clause for new policing powers to be invoked.
6.30 p.m.
In Committee, the Minister demanded the existence of byelaws before a warden service could operate. He said that it was essential to have a code of conduct so that wardens knew the basis on which they operated. However, Section 92 of the 1949 Act, which allows wardens to be appointed in National Parks, does not say that byelaws have to be in force before wardens can operate. All it says is that there has to be a power over certain land for byelaws to be invoked. I hope that, to some extent, that disposes of the Minister's objection. However, I shall return to it presently.
I turn specifically to the new Clause, where we have attempted to meet all the objections that the Minister raised in Committee. We have confined the area over which wardens could operate. Under the terms of the new Clause, wardens will only be allowed to operate on urban commons set up under Section 193 of the Law of Property Act, 1925. That Section covers areas in my constituency in the urban district of Keswick and in the Lakes and the Windermere urban council areas. In the Lakes urban area alone, 12,000 acres are involved in urban commons, and they include the parts of the Lake District which are best known to the general public, such as Langdale Pikes, Fairfield and half the summit of Helvellyn. This is the area which people know best and to which thousands of visitors come every year, and it is vital to have wardens who are able to operate on these urban commons.
It might be as well to remind the House of what urban commons mean and why they were set up under the 1925 Act. Among other things, Section 193 says that members of the public shall have rights of access for air or exercise to any land which is the subject of the Section. The point is that all this vast area of land covered by the Law of Property Act, 1925, has been open to the public for free access for over 40 years. But, by virtue of the 1949 Act which followed it, all the land is excepted, which means that it is impossible to make access agreements and arrangements over it so that wardens can operate, because wardens are allowed to operate only over land which has access agreements or orders upon it. By the very nature of these vast tracts of urban

commons which are open to the public, wardens are not allowed over them by Statute, and that fact makes the whole problem extremely difficult.
The difficulty of the present situation was put to me very clearly by the chief land agent to the National Trust in the Lake District, who made the point that if someone is dying of exposure on Langdale Pikes or Bowfell, the Lake District Planning Board cannot send out its wardens to rescue him. That is the absurd situation which we have reached with the warden service because of the limitations put upon it by the 1949 Act.
My new Clause is smaller in scope than the one which I moved in Committee. In it, we have tried to meet the objections of the Minister, and I hope that it will be accepted.
The other objection which was made in Committee was that there should be an umbrella of byelaws and codes of conduct under which the wardens could operate. However, under Section 193 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, by which the urban commons were formed, there are clear and wide byelaws and codes of conduct already in existence. For instance, one is not allowed to drive vehicles on the land, or camp, or light fires. Limitations are imposed by the Ministry of Agriculture. The Litter Act applies to the land and has to be enforced. Then on urban commons in the Lake District there are county byelaws which prohibit stone rolling and the use of wireless sets and loudspeakers. There are others for the protection of plants, and so on. Then in Section 193 there are powers for Orders of Limitation which allow more conditions to be made, but which we have no powers to enforce at present.
The remaining power for which we ask in the new Clause is that for wardens to enforce or supervise compliance with the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, which allow speed limits to be enforced on some of our lakes, particularly Windermere.
We ought to have more powers to enable wardens to advise and assist the public on land under the Law of Property Act, 1925, and on all waterways under the Merchant Shipping Act. The greatest use and function of our wardens is to advise and help the public. That in


itself is an adequate code of conduct, without the long list of codes and bye-laws which I have read.
I want to meet a point which the Minister put to me when he tried to make out that this was a Lake District problem. That is not true, particularly when it is realised that urban commons can be and have been added to up and down the country by lords of the manor who, by means of deeds and declarations, have brought certain areas of land within Section 193. I have spoken already of the Lake District commons which are very vast, but I would point out to the Minister that in Penllyn, in the Snowdonia National Park, there are 17,000 acres. There are urban commons in other parts of the Snowdonia National Park, and the Crown Estate Commissioners have applied Section 193 to all Crown commons, and they own a large acreage in North and Central Wales and in the Snowdonia and Brecon National Parks. In Wales, there are vast areas which come under Section 193 and on which my new Clause would allow wardens to be used. There are other commons in the Dartmoor and Exmoor National Parks where the Lords of the manor have adopted Section 193. Examples include Spitchwick Common, with 2,000 acres at Widecombe; Haytor Down, in the Dartmoor National Park, with over 1,000 acres; and Brenda Common, with over 3,000 acres in the Exmoor National Park. This is a national problem, as I hope I have made clear. I hope, too, that I have made it clear how pressing it is and how much we need powers.
I think that the new Clause meets entirely the objections and reservations which the Minister voiced in Committee. I hope that on this occasion he will be able to accept it. If he can see his way to do it, it will be greatly welcomed all over the country.

Mr. MacDermot: As the hon. Gentleman has said, this is a much modified version of a new Clause which he moved in Standing Committee. I am not sure that its purpose is wholly attained by its present drafting, but what it seeks to do is to allow a Park Planning Authority's wardens to go on any common land or on certain waterways in a National Park. At present there are the powers of wardens which derive from Section 92 of

the Act of 1949 under which they can go on any land in the authority's ownership or in respect of which access orders or agreements have been made. I believe the Lake District Planning Board in particular wants to be able to send wardens on to common land, of which there are considerable areas in the Lake District; and as the hon. Gentleman has told us, much of it is in urban districts and therefore within Section 193 of the Law of Property Act.
As far as waterways are concerned, what they particularly have in mind are the four public lakes sometimes referred to as Windermere, Ullswater, Coniston and Derwentwater. We have had considerable discussion in Standing Committee about waterways in National Parks and we were urged to seek to find ways of giving the National Parks Authorities greater powers, either by byelaws or by regulations and Orders, to control activities on waterways in National Parks.

Mr. Channon: There is another new Clause on this which we shall come to later.

Mr. MacDermot: I want to make clear that we have given close attention to that and will be coming to a new Clause dealing with that matter, but, as far as the Government's proposals are concerned, I believe we will need a little more time to get them fully completed. But I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are proposing to bring forward proposals which I believe will go most of the way to meet what he wants in relation to waterways.
As far as common lands are concerned, the problem here is that, as we all know, action under the Commons Registration Act is now proceeding, and I believe that there is danger in tinkering with the law affecting commons at the present time. There are already existing powers of management of commons and there are byelaw-making powers. I know that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) will take the point I am making, because it is one which he himself made when we were discussing Clause 7 of the Bill in Standing Committee. He will remember that he asked:
Why should we have very curious piecemeal legislation, allowing certain developments


to take place on commons in the face of the sure knowledge that a Bill will be going through Parliament on the subject within the next four or five years?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 23rd January, 1968; c. 475.]
The hon. Gentleman may say that that argument does not come very strongly from a Government having made the position as it is in Clause 7, but here it is a question of striking a right balance ever it. I say at once that I have some sympathy towards the argument he is putting forward and I concede that at some stage it is desirable to make provision to enable there to be a proper enforcement of byelaws on commons and in National Parks.

Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman has quoted what I said in Standing Committee on commons registration and I am grateful that he has done so. I do not withdraw a single word that I said, then or now, but if he is arguing on the Commons Registration Act will he give one or two examples of the ways in which, by enacting my proposed Clause, he would, or would be likely to, interfere with the development of commons registration? Frankly, I cannot think of one. I discussed this with the Clerk to the Lake District Planning Board over the weekend, exactly in this context, and he could not think of one either.

Mr. MacDermot: I am not suggesting that it will interfere with the process of registration. The argument that has been put to me and which I have put before the House is that the sensible course would be to review the question of bye-laws and of their enforcement in regard to commons in National Parks in the context of the further legislation for commons which is proposed. The effect of that would be that we would avoid what to others would seem to be anomalies between public access in National Parks and rural commons there which were not subject to access de jure although the public may, in fact, resort to them. I believe it is the Lake District Planning Board in particular which feels strongly about this. I am not suggesting that there are not commons in other areas but we have not had representations from other areas on this. If that Board feels strongly about this then I am prepared to consider this matter with the assistance of the hon. Gentleman.
6.45 p.m.
I do not wish to tie myself at the moment to give any undertaking beyond saying I will consider sympathetically the proposal he is making in relation to these commons in National Parks. For the reasons I have given and in particular my reference to the waterways for which provision would not be apt here, I would ask him not to press his new Clause, on my undertaking to examine the matter further in the light of what he has said.

Mr. Peter Mills: I should like strongly to support my hon. Friend on this Clause. I am grateful to the Minister for saying he will look at this again. Although he does not wish to be pressed on it, I hope he will look at it very carefully, because I believe there are many reasons why we ought to have National Parks wardens. There is the necessity for assisting people advising them on routes, roads and paths and places of interest. What I am really concerned about, however, is the situation when trouble arises on a moor or common. This is becoming more and more frequent as more and more people come into the countryside. The whole object of this Bill is to have people come into the countryside and we want them to enjoy it; but on these bleak moors, particularly places like Dartmoor and Bodmin Moor, it is extraordinary how quickly people can run into trouble, and I should have thought wardens were the very people to assist them, showing them where they were, guiding them to the nearest town or village and giving first aid. Then there is the problem of mist descending quickly and suddenly upon people who do not know where they are. Here, again, wardens could help.
I would have thought this kind of problem will increase. I can only tell the Minister that over the last year or two, particularly on Dartmoor, we have had serious troubles and people have died through exposure and from other causes. I am sure that this kind of problem will increase and park wardens could assist in such difficulties, guiding people and helping them out of trouble. I hope that the Minister will consider this aspect when he is deciding whether or not to accept this new Clause, because I believe it is a very real point and that there will be increasing problems and difficulties in the future as more and more people come into the countryside.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: I rise briefly to support this Amendment so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling). The Minister of State in his reply endorsed a statement made in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington):
Because we cannot make law purely in relation to the Lake District, which has a special case, I could not advise the Committee to accept the Clause."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 13th February, 1968; c. 995.]
I understand that very few hon. Members were present in Standing Committee when this Amendment was moved. Perhaps in those circumstances it is not altogether surprising that my hon. Friend's statement was not challenged. I should like to challenge it and to inform him that there is certainly concern in the Peak district about extending powers of wardens. I should like to draw particular attention to the Twelfth Report of the National Parks Commission, 1961, Appendix E, paragraph 12. This says:
We recommend that Section 92 (Wardens) of the Act should be amended so that wardens may be appointed to perform duties designed to secure a proper standard of behaviour on the part of persons visiting National Parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. Their appointment should not depend upon the existence of access agreements or orders or on the ownership of land by local authorities.
This is a clear recognition by the National Parks Commission of the need to go much further than the new Clause proposes. I therefore hope that my hon. and learned Friend will recognise that this problem is a national one and not restricted to the Lake District. He should at least make this concession and provide protection and coverage for commons.

Mr. Channon: I am glad that the Minister of State has agreed to look at this again, although he cannot accept the new Clause. There is genuine feeling on both sides that this should be tackled. Hon. Members on his own side, the hon. Members for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson) and South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) have signed the new Clause, and we on this side feel strongly about this. We hope that the Government will move an Amendment in another place to meet these very real points and that we will not have to wait for further legislation before action is taken.

Mr. Jopling: I am grateful for what the Minister of State has said and I hope that something can be done in another place. A Clause of this sort would encourage other lords of the manor to bring land under the umbrella of Section 193—so that the public would have access to more land, as we all want—because they will know that a warden is available. Owners of land want to know that their land is being looked after and visitors supervised by wardens I hope that something useful may come out of the hon. and learned Gentleman's consideration. I hope that we can consult hon. Gentlemen opposite who have supported this, since a provision of this sort will meet, if only in part, all the points of the Lake District Planning Board, which will be splendid for the Lake District. I thank the Government for their attitude, and, with the leave of the House, I would like to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause No. 8.

PROVISION OF MEALS, REFRESHMENTS AND ACCOMMODATION.

In the exercise of their functions under this Act with regard to the provision for the public of meals, refreshments and accommodation it shall be the duty of the Commission, the Forestry Commissioners and local authorities, before themselves providing such facilities, to satisfy themselves by the public invitation of tenders that such facilities cannot adequately be provided by other persons on satisfactory terms.—[Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Speaker: I think that it would be convenient to discuss with this new Clause Amendments No. 18, in Clause 6, page 8, line 12 at end insert:
Provided that a local authority shall not under this section provide accommodation meals or refreshments unless they have satisfied themselves by the public invitation of tenders that such facilities cannot be provided by other persons on satisfactory terms;
No. 27, in Clause 8, page 11, line 41, at end insert:
Provided that a local authority shall not under this section provide accommodation meals or refreshments unless they have satisfied themselves by the public invitation of tenders that such facilities cannot be provided by other persons on satisfactory terms;


and No. 42, in Clause 18, page 20, line 21, at end insert:
Provided that the Commissioners shall not under this section provide accommodation meals or refreshments unless they have satisfied themselves by the public invitation of tenders that such facilities cannot be provided by other persons on satisfactory terms.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The Clause will allow the Parliamentary Secretary to clarify what he said in Committee, when there were two matters on which he and my hon. Friends had a difference of opinion. The first was that thought that the local authority should provide meals, refreshments and accommodation, whereas some of us on this side disagreed. The second was that he thought that, in many places, no-one would be available to provide these services, whereas some of us thought that there are few parts of the country where people are not already providing at least some of these services and could not provide additional ones better than a local authority.
The hon. Gentleman said in Committee:
Therefore, it seems to us to be reasonable that the local authority should have the right to provide the facilities that seem appropriate for that sort of concept … Obviously, a responsible local authority will make its arrangements … Of course, in a number of cases, these will no doubt be made through concessionaires. This is not the sort of prows on which is aimed at private enterprise."—(OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 14th December, 1967; c. 297.]
So he said at first that the local authority would be the right body, and then that it would sometimes be done through concessionaires. The new Clause would ensure that concessionaires had the opportunity and would remove the doubts of those already providing such services about whether they could provide any increased services required. There is always the fear that services provided by local authorities would have to be financed by the ratepayers.
In Committee, I asked the hon. Gentleman to reconsider Section 3 of the Civic Restaurants Act, 1947, which seemed a respectable precedent from a previous Social administration, and which provided that, if an organisation did not operate at a profit after a reason-

able period, it had to close down. In reply, the hon. Gentleman said that he would be glad to look at anything. He has had the chance to look at this and at anything else now, and I hope that he will now think that the new Clause will clarify what he said in Committee and would be a welcome addition to the Bill.

Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: I hope that the Forestry Commission will not be asked to provide restaurants on any scale. Those of us who have regularly visited conservancies in all-party groups know of the efforts of the Commission to attract the public to forest areas where no harm would be done to forestry. But, however good its work, we have gained the impression that it has its hands full with other things, since its first job is to grow trees and its second, increasingly, to market them. In one or two areas, such as the Keilder Forest on the Upper Tyne, the Commission is providing excellent facilities for the public. It would be wrong to give it the job of providing food if it did not wish to do so; nor would it be right to ask the Commission to accept on its forestry votes any expenditure or losses which might be caused. For these reasons, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will accept the new Clause.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Pardoe: One might refer here to Bagehot, who was quoted favourably by the Prime Minister recently, in saying that, where we cannot have competition in the field, we should have competition for the field. This is a principle which should be followed in this situation as in all others. Unlimited competition is not possible in providing these facilities—there are obvious limits—but there are grave dangers, as shown by the recent and recurring troubles of the Egg Marketing Board over the second eggs scheme, in powers for a commission, marketing board or other authority to provide services like this. If a system of tendering is not provided for, the whole matter can go adrift. It is absolutely essential not only to write in a system of tendering, as has been done here, but to see that it is universal.
Private enterprise always provides a better service, particularly in catering,


than a State-run organisation. For example, British Rail was pleased to hand over to private enterprise its cafeteria at Tavistock, a small station in the West Country—which it could not possibly keep open on the terms on which it had been running it. For the last two or three years a man and his wife have been running what was a non-paying cafeteria to the satisfaction of all concerned, including British Rail, and they have been operating it not only successfully but profitably. I hope that the Minister will accept that rather than for us to allow the Commission to run these establishments, they should be given out to tender to private enterprise.

Mr. A. P. Costain: I support this reasonable new Clause. Hon. Members know how difficult it is, even in the heart of Westminster, to make a refreshment department work. Those who travel overseas also appreciate that the facilities which are provided by private enterprise at beauty spots and elsewhere are always more efficient than State-run organisations. We should make it obligatory for local authorities to put this out to tender so that efficient, competitive and reliable services are offered to the public.

Mr. Ray Mawby: I, too, support the Clause and from what my hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine) said, I think that he may have been pushing at an open door. If so, it means that the Parliamentary Secretary realises the tremendous value of the work done by small groups of people in country areas in providing refreshment facilities for the public. Hon. Members whose constituencies include parts of national parks will appreciate the important work done by men and their wives in providing services required by the public. Their activities are greatly preferable to those of the large State organisation, which must face staffing problems and the need to find employment for staff not required in the winter. This makes the service extremely expensive. On the other hand, a small private firm or a man and his wife can provide these facilities without difficulty.

Mr. Peter Mills: My reason for supporting the Clause is that it is right in principle, and anything else would be

utterly wrong. I fundamentally disagree with the Government on this issue because I do not like the idea of development boards and commissions interfering with private enterprise. When Government bodies enter this sort of business they usually make a mess of it. Nobody is attracted by the food offered by British Rail. Even the tea is cold. Private enterprise does this job well, and I will not, in explaining why, go into the difficulties mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) of the Commission having to find employment for its unwanted staff in the winter.
In many country areas farmers' wives provide refreshment facilities and, by doing so, help to meet their expenses. In some areas this work is part of the "perks" and it should not be taken away from the wives of farmers or farm workers who, from their small cottages, provide cups of tea and perhaps bed and breakfast at 22s. a night. This is a little hit of jam on the small amount of bread that they have, and it would be wrong for the State to interfere with it.

Mr. Anderson: I cannot understand this farrago of prejudice from hon. Gentlemen opposite, particularly from the normally sensible hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills), who referred to State concerns inevitably making a botch of things and British Rail always serving cold tea.
Although I go part of the way with the new Clause, I disagree with it in principle. This matter should be left flexible and, where the provision of these facilities can be put out to tender, that will be done. I have no objection in principle to the Commission entering into this type of business, as long as it does so on a fair basis and competes on fair terms with private enterprise. I shall support this principle in the Transport Bill, just as I shall in this Measure.

Mr. Skeffington: This reminds me of several discussions we had in Committee when hon. Gentlemen opposite allowed doctrinal obsessions to take over. Even the hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine) dragged in the suggestion that if a local authority became the main agent in providing these services, the cost would fall on the ratepayers. That may happen in his constituency, but I know that it does not happen in the


constituency of his hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), where the local authority makes good profits out of the provision of extremely good services of this kind. As far as I know, the Hotels Executive has never made a loss.
However. I do not wish to base my case on this philosophical or doctrinal attitude, but to ask the House to face up to the situation in which increasing demands are being made on the facilities being provided in the countryside. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite have not given sufficient thought to the enormous number of people who wish to take advantage of these facilities. Our 581 people per square mile are becoming more mobile. The Bill aims in part at opening up areas to the public by the creation of parks, picnic sites, camps and so on.
To meet this demand, local authorities will wish to provide facilities. If facilities are available, they will not wish to do that. Nor will the Commission, which is limited to providing these facilities only in a few experimental projects—and even then it may not wish to do that. The matter is completely at the Commission's discretion. Local authorities will use existing facilities if they are adequate. Many municipal authorities take the view that where facilities should be provided in town parks, it is essential, for the families who wish to spend their time in the parks, to provide these facilities.
Whether the provision of these facilities should be left to private or local enterprise is a matter for the local authorities concerned. We wish to adopt the principle that in this great new obligation which local authorities will have, they should act responsibly, remembering that if these authorities were not capable of operating responsibly, Administrations of both parties would not have given them greater powers over the years.
We must consider this matter in a practical way and face the problems arising from the vast number of people who are going into the country. There are now nine million motorcars on our roads. There will be 20 million in 10 years' time. These facilities must be provided.
It is not true that, as some hon. Members seemed to suggest, the powers we are giving to local authorities and the Forestry Commission in the relatively small number of cases where this situation might arise

would prevent anyone else offering a service. This provision does not stop anyone doing so, but it is to see that in particular areas there will be adequate facilities. In the sort of place mentioned by the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby), such as Keilder, it is unlikely that any private caterer would be interested in providing these facilities. We are giving local authorities or the Forestry Commission the opportunity to provide them where there is a need for them and where they cannot be conveniently provided adequately by private enterprise.
I was asked what would happen in the winter. The Commission would close its accommodation in the winter just as the private operator would close accommodation. Perhaps hon. Members forget that already about 5 million people visit the forests annually. It is right that the Commission, in appropriate circumstances and at its discretion, should provide facilities which cannot be conveniently provided by others. It is wrong to take this grandmotherly attitude towards the Commission and the local authorities.
I am sure the new Clause has been put forward only in order to elicit a response from the Government. It would not be adequate. I merely says that the bodies named in relation to various activities
shall not … provide accommodation, meals or refreshments unless they have satisfied themselves by the public invitation of tenders that such facilities cannot be provided by other persons on satisfactory terms.
Satisfactory to whom? Does it mean more economically? It is quite hopeless, even if it were taken as a test of practicality. Our belief is that the Commission and local authorities, in the small number of cases in which they may be concerned, should have the right to do these things, if they cannot be provided conveniently by others.

Mr. John Smith: What the Parliamentary Secretary has said arouses all the fears that many of us have about this Bill. His approach was entirely urban. This is not a question of national or municipal enterprise versus private enterprise but a question of our approach to the countryside.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Hotels Executive and what is done in town parks, but the type of person who wishes to go miles in search


of solitude—and whom I wish to encourage to do so—does not want to find a British Restaurant on his arrival there. He wishes to find, incompetent though it may be, and in municipal terms most incompetent, a farmhouse tea. I therefore warmly support the new Clause and I hope that we can expunge this urban approach from the Bill.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Jopling: I did not intend to speak in this debate, but, after listening to the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Anderson) and to the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary, I feel constrained to do so. The hon. Member for Monmouth did not try to do what I give credit to the Parliamentary Secretary for doing—to argue his case. He more or less said, "I do not like this Amendment. I am all for State trading; I approve of it in the Transport Bill and here". We would have been grateful if he had given a few reasons. He might have said, "I like this because Karl Marx wrote it and I will go into the Lobby and vote against this new Clause". I am sorry that he did not explain his position more fully.
My reaction to the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary was exactly the same as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith). This would be a useful Clause dealing with remote rural areas where the provision of accommodation would be only marginally profitable. Whoever makes provision for catering and accommodation there should make the best possible use of resources, not only in investment but in his work. The best use of resources could be ensured by the private enterprise man in a small way. He could provide a far more efficient service in these areas.
From the point of view of rural depopulation, this new Clause is important. These catering enterprises are only marginally profitable. It may be that the Commission or the local authorities would find them too expensive and that the cost would be too great. Then, if they decided not to provide them, there would be no such provision. Many hon. Members on either side of the House have tried to create a situation in which more people will be encouraged to live in remote areas. By writing into the Bill a firm provision that private enterprise must

have first priority in this activity, we would be encouraging more people to live in those areas in which we are so concerned about rural depopulation.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine) will press the new Clause to a Division. I shall have the greatest pleasure in supporting it in the Lobby.

Mr. Channon: This debate has shown how totally doctrinaire the Parliamentary Secretary is. In this new Clause we attempted to put forward a compromise solution. So undoctrinaire were we in Committee that the Parliamentary Secretary asked for time to look at this proposal again. If he thought that we were putting forward a totally invalid suggestion, why did he say in Committee:
The Government have some sympathy with the intention behind the Amendment ",—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 14th December, 1967; c. 295.]
We sought to strike a balance between the interests of private enterprise and the interests of the State. I shall show the number of occasions in which, where it is proposed that various authorities can provide meals, refreshment and accommodation, a fantastic side-swipe can be taken against the proposal. A plethora of hotels and restaurants could be set up as a result of this Bill. What could be more disastrous for the countryside?
If it is thought that I am exaggerating, I call attention to Clause 3, by which the Commission, for experimental purposes, can provide meals, refreshment or accommodation because it has power to
set up and carry on directly or through an agent any business or undertaking.
I should be astonished if this were not wide enough. They would certainly have the power to do it under that Clause.
Under Clause 6 the local authorities have the power to set up hotels in the country parks and provide meals or accommodation. In Clause 7 the local authorities have the power to do it on common land, and as a result, my hon. Friends voted against this provision in the Standing Committee. Curiously enough, though, in Clause 7 the Government have put forward a safeguard which, had it been written into the rest of the Bill, would have meant that my hon. Friends would not be pressing this new


Clause. Clause 7 in regard to common land that
a local authority shall not under this section provide accommodation, meals or refreshments except in so far as it appears to them that the facilities therefor in the neighbourhood of the common land are inadequate or unsatisfactory.…".
If the Government were prepared to write that into the remaining parts of the Bill, they would have a case. It is quite unsatisfactory for the Parliamentary Secretary to come to this House and say that in those remote areas the facilities are going to be so unsatisfactory and inconvenient that it is essential that this is in the Bill, yet not be prepared to write in the safeguard we would be willing to accept, and indeed suggested in the Standing Committee debates.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) will be interested in the powers of the Forestry Commission under Clause 18. I hope we shall have an opportunity to discuss this in detail later, because the Forestry Commission is given powers to provide accommodation for visitors, camping sites and caravan sites, shops, public conveniences, information centres and a whole host of things which could very easily, on occasion, be provided equally satisfactorily by private enterprise.
During the Committee stage we suggested that the Government should either bring in the safeguards which they have in their own Clause 7 or adopt the test which my hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine) pointed out that they brought in under the previous Labour Government in the Civic Restaurants Act of 1947, that if such activities did not show a profit for three years certain penalties should follow. Either course would seem to me to be reasonable.

This Clause does not stop local authorities providing the facilities when it is impossible for them to be provided in other ways, which would avoid a waste of public money. It simply says:
it shall be the duty of the Commission, the Forestry Commissioners and local authorities, before themselves providing such facilities, to satisfy themselves by the public invitation of tenders that such facilities cannot adequately be provided by other persons on satisfactory terms.

That seems to me to be perfectly satisfactory and reasonable and to represent a compromise which could easily have been accepted by the Government. We suggest public invitation of tenders, that other people should be invited to say if they wish to provide the facilities; and if they can do so on satisfactory terms we think they should have the chance.

One of the major defects of the Bill as drafted is that time and again, in Clause after Clause, more powers are written in for local authorities, the Forestry Commission or the Countryside Commission to engage in activities which are not essential to their job under the Bill, which will divert their attention from providing the things we want to see them provide under the Bill—to providing meals, refreshments or accommodation, and will do so at the expense of private enterprise and in a way which will ensure that the facilities lose money and fail to give satisfaction to those who will be the customers.

I very much hope that my hon. Friends will agree to divide the House on this subject, to show how deeply we feel about this Clause.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 139, Noes 202.

Division No. 115.]
AYES
[7.24 p.m.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Brewis, John
Costain, A. P.


Astor, John
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Cunningham, Sir Knox


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col, Sir Walter
Dance, James


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Biffen, John
Bullus, Sir Eric
Dodds-Parker, Douglas


Biggs-Davison, John
Campbell, Cordon
Doughty, Charles


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Carlisle, Mark
Drayson, G. B.


Black, Sir Cyril
Channon, H. P. G.
Eden, Sir John


Blaker, Peter
Chichester-Clark, R.
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Boardman, Tom
Clark, Henry
Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Body, Richard
Clegg, Walter
Emery, Peter


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Cooke, Robert
Errington, Sir Eric




Eyre, Reginald
Lubbock, Eric
Royle, Anthony


Fortescue, Tim
MacArthur, Ian
Scott, Nicholas


Gibson-Watt, David
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Sharples, Richard


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maginnis, John E.
Silvester, Frederick


Goodhew, Victor
Mawby, Ray
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Grant, Anthony
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Speed, Keith


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Stainton, Keith


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mills, peter (Torrington)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Miscampbell, Norman
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Hastings, Stephen
Monro, Hector
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hawkins, Paul
More, Jasper
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Hiley, Joseph
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Tilney, John


Hill, J. E. B.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Holland, Philip
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hooson, Emlyn
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Hornby, Richard
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Hunt, John
Pardoe, John
Walters, Dennis


Iremonger, T. L.
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Ward, Dame Irene


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rve)
Peel, John
Webster, David


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Percival, Ian
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pink, R. Bonner
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Jopling, Michael
Pounder, Rafton
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Kimball, Marcus
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Prior, J. M. L.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Pym, Francis
Worsley, Marcus


Lane, David
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Wylie, N. R.


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James



Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Mr. Timothy Kitson and


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Ridsdale, Julian
Mr. Humphrey Atkins.


Loveys, W. H.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)





NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dunnett, Jack
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Alldritt, Walter
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras, S.)


Anderson, Donald
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Archer, Peter
Eadie, Alex
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Armstrong, Ernest
Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Kelley, Richard


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Beaney, Alan
Ellis, John
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Bence, Cyril
Fernyhough, E.
Lawson, George


Bennett, James (C'gow, Bridgeton)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Leadbitter, Ted


Bidwell, Sydney
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Binns, John
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lee, John (Reading)


Bishop, E. S.
Foley, Maurice
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Blackburn, F.
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lomas, Kenneth


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Ford, Ben
Loughlin, Charles


Boston, Terence
Forrester, John
Luard, Evan


Boyden, James
Fowler, Gerry
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Galpern, Sir Myer
McCann, John


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Gardner, Tony
MacDermot, Niall


Brooks, Edwin
Garrett, W. E.
Macdonald, A. H.


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Gourlay, Harry
McGuire, Michael


Brown, Hugh D. (C'gow, Provan)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Butter, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mackie, John


Cant, R. B.
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Maclennan, Robert


Carmichael, Neil
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Macpherson, Malcolm


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hamling, William
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Coleman, Donald
Hannan, William
Matron, Simon (Bootle)


Concannon, J. D.
Harper, Joseph
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)


Conlan, Bernard
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mapp, Charles


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Haseldine, Norman
Marks, Kenneth


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hazell, Bert
Marquand, David


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mendelson, J. J.


Dalyell, Tam
Hilton, W. S.
Mikardo, Ian


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hooley, Frank
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Horner, John
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Doug as
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Howie, W.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hoy, James
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Dempsey, James
Huckfield, Leslie
Moyle, Roland


Dewar, Donald
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Murray, Albert


Dickens, James
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen N.)
Noel-Baker, Bt.Hn.philip (Derby, S.)


Doig, Peter
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Oakes, Gordon


Driberg, Tom
Hynd, John
O'Malley, Brian


Dunn, James A.
Janner, Sir Barnett
Oram, Albert E.







Orbach, Maurice
Rose, Paul
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Orme, Stanley
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Rowlands, E, (Cardiff, N.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Wallace, George


Padley, Walter
Short, Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Palmer, Arthur
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Whitlock, William


Park, Trevor
Skeffington, Arthur
Wilkins, W. A.


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Small, William
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Snow, Julian
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Spriggs, Leslie
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Pentland, Norman
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Winnick, David


Price, William (Rugby)
Swain, Thomas
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Probert, Arthur
Swingler, Stephen
Yates, Victor


Randall, Harry
Symonds, J. B.



Rankin, John
Thornton, Ernest
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Richard, Ivor
Tinn, James
Mr. Ioan L. Evans and


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Urwin, T. W.
Mr. Neil McBride.


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Varley, Eric C.

New Clause No. 9.

DUTY OF HIGHWAY AUTHORITY IN REGARD TO STRUCTURES.

(1) It shall be the duty of a highway authority in the exercise of their powers to maintain any stile, gate or other structure across a footpath or bridleway (hereafter called 'the structure ') in such a state as not to cause any harm or inconvenience to persons using the footpath or bridleway.

(2) If it appears to the highway authority for the footpath or bridleway that the structure is in need of repair whether with or without prior notification of that fact having been made to it by the owner or occupier of the land it stall have power to make arrangements for the owner or occupier of the land to take all reasonable steps to repair and make good tie structure.

(3) Where any such arrangement as referred to in subsection (2) above is made, the highway authority shall make a contribution of seventy-five per cent. of the reasonable expenses incurred by the owner or occupier of the land in repairing and making good the structure.

(4) This section shall be construed as one with the Highways Act 1959.—[Mr. Channon.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Channon: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this Clause I suggest that we discuss Amendment No. 61, in page 24, line 20, leave out "the amount" and insert "three-quarters"; Amendment No. 62, in page 24, line 22, leave out "subsection" to end and Government Amendment No. 63 and the Amendment to Government Amendment No. 63 in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon).

Mr. Channon: That suggested grouping is convenient, because it enables the

House to decide how to treat this very important problem. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling), I think that this is probably the most important new Clause that we have to discuss. I am glad that it has been possible to discuss all the Amendments relating to stiles together. There is no doubt that the rights of way Clauses are hound to have an important effect on the lives of those who live in or frequently visit the countryside.
The Clause enables the House to decide whether the duty to repair stiles, gates and other structures across footpaths or bridleways should be placed upon the highway authority or, as the Government propose, upon owners and occupiers of land. The Government have come forward with proposals which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) said in Committee, will be revolutionary for the countryside. There will be widespread feeling and anxiety about them. The Government propose to make farmers responsible for the first time for the maintenance of stiles over public footpaths.
There will be many small farmers with large numbers of stiles over footpaths on their land to whom this will be a great burden. In the Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine) quoted the example of a very small farm on which there were no fewer than 34 stiles. It has been estimated that it would cost about £8 to maintain each stile. My hon. Friend said that in his part of the country stiles last on an average for about two weeks, so this is a substantial burden.
It must be admitted that the law has been confusing up to the present. Most


authorities agree that it has been the duty of highway authorities to repair gates, stiles and footpaths. I shall not discuss at great length the legal position in regard to stiles, because many hon. Members, among whom is certainly the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, know the position very well. Many cases point out that, if the local authority is responsible for the surface repairs on a road, it is also responsible for the stiles and gates.
This situation will change when the Bill becomes law. The Gosling Committee recommended in paragraphs 42 to 46 that the maintenance of stiles and gates should be transferred to the landowner or the occupier. It did so on the grounds of keeping costs to a minimum and for various practical reasons.
In paragraph 44 of its Report, the Gosling Committee said:
We have heard evidence that, bearing in mind the present and prospective recreational use of footpaths, there is a strong case for a substantial part of the cost of maintenance of stiles and gates to be met from the public purse. But in the interest of keeping these costs to a minimum and also for practical reasons, we recommend that owners and occupiers should be responsible for the task of maintenance.
In paragraph 45, the Committee said:
'… it seems to us fair, and we recommend, that owners or occupiers should, as of right, receive a reasonable contribution from the highway authority towards maintenance costs, subject only to the work being carried out to an acceptable standard.
I have two criticisms of the Gosling Committee's recommendations. Fist, I do not think that the Committee paid enough attention to the argument on equity, the great change which would affect people in the countryside, particularly small farmers, to a very great degree. Second, its recommendation was too general. It did not say what it had in mind or how much recompense should be made to the owners of land affected by the proposal. In the result, the Government did not at first accept the Gosling Committee's interim recommendation, when the Bill was printed and at the Second Reading stage.
In Standing Committee, my hon. Friends and I pressed strongly—and we had the support of certain hon. Members opposite—that there should be a mandatory contribution by the highway

authority for the maintenance of stiles, gates and other structures. We argued that that mandatory contribution should be 75 per cent., unless the duty was not complied with by the landowner. If the owner did not carry out his duties—this is Clause 22(2)—the highway authority would have to do the work itself and would then recover 50 per cent., so that it would cost the owner more if he did not do the work.
The Parliamentary Secretary accepted the principle of a mandatory contribution but he was not prepared to go beyond 25 per cent., the figure written into the Government Amendment now before us. The sense of the Committee on that occasion, on both sides, was against the figure of 25 per cent. My hon. Friends and I argued for 75 per cent. The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Anderson)—this is column 1215—suggested a mandatory contribution of 50 per cent. The hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson)—this is column 1217—suggested some such figure as 60 per cent. The hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson)—this is column 1221—argued somewhat differently from myself but said that there should be power to contribute up to 75 per cent. I did not regard that as satisfactory because it did not have a mandatory lower figure, which I thought essential. It is fair to say, therefore, that opinion in the Standing Committee, although it did not go as far as 75 per cent., was in favour of a great deal more than 25 per cent.
The Parliamentary Secretary argued that the 25 per cent. mandatory contribution would be discretionary and that in certain cases highway authorities could go higher, sometimes even going up to 100 per cent. We all know what happens with a discretionary payment system. The 25 per cent. would almost certainly become the maximum in all but a small minority of cases.
I still regard the 25 per cent. proposed by the Government as unsatisfactory, and I hope that hon. Members opposite will agree. It seems to me that the choice lies between the new Clause, which would keep the onus and duty on the highway authority, and the Government's proposal to put the burden on the owner, with a 25 per cent. mandatory contribution from the highway authority. Before I discuss the merits of those two courses, I shall


explain the purpose of new Clause No. 9 a little further.
7.45 p.m.
The Clause would place on the highway authority the duty to maintain stiles, gates and so on across footpaths. One passage in the new Clause would require amendment if it were accepted by the House. Instead of providing that the stiles or gates should be kept
in such a state as not to cause harm or inconvenience",
it would have to agree with the Government Amendment as regards harm or inconvenience. I say that at once because I do not want it to be thrown out on drafting grounds.
The highway authority would have power to delegate its duties if it wished, but it would then make a contribution of 75 per cent. of the reasonable expenses incurred by the owner or occupier of the hind. In general, the responsibility to maintain would rest on the highway authorities themselves.
Hon. Members may hold different opinions on whether it is right that this duty should fall on the highway authority or on the owner of the land. I agree that, on balance, it would be more convenient if the duty were put on the owner but, in that event, the compensation must be reasonable. In my view, the worst of all possible solutions would be to leave Clause 22 unamended. No one wants to do that. The best possible solution would be acceptance of our Amendment to the Government Amendment, which would make the mandatory contribution 50 per cent. Failing that, as second best, I should press new Clause No. 9, which would keep the duty on the highway authorities.
I very much hope that the Government will not stick to their solution, which is to make the mandatory contribution 25 per cent. I look forward to hearing hon. Members opposite, if they agree that there is a case for increasing the mandatory contributions, and I hope that the Government will be persuaded to raise the figure from 25 to 50 per cent. If they agree, I shall ask leave to withdraw the new Clause. If they do not, I shall ask my hon. Friends to press the new Clause, because we think that it would be better than keeping such a small fig are as 25 per cent. for the mandatory contribution.
The House is united in its wish to see greater opportunities for access and enjoyment of the countryside after the Bill becomes law. It is united also, I think, in agreeing that, if there is this great increase in access, there will inevitably be great problems for those who live and work in the countryside. Great burdens will be placed on small farmers, and they will find it very difficult to meet them. I hope that the Government recognise that.
My hon. Friends and I have moved from our proposed 75 per cent. mandatory contribution to the figure of 50 per cent. because, in the light of our discussion in Committee, we took it to be the general view that that was an acceptable figure which all hon. Members could support. This a genuine attempt to find a solution which will not put upon highway authorities so great a burden as would be unreasonable, while, on the other hand, not putting too great a burden upon the people who will have the duty of mending stiles and looking after them, paying for the work out of their own pocket.
This is a genuine attempt to find a solution acceptable to both sides in the discussion. There is no party political difference between us. It is purely a question of the practical way to deal with the problem so that all sides can be satisfied with the Bill when it becomes law. I hope that the Government will accept, not necessarily the new Clause, but the Amendment raising the mandatory contribution from 25 per cent. to 50 per cent. If they do so, a broadly satisfactory solution to this very difficult problem can be reached. Those who live and work in the countryside will be very grateful that an answer is found which recognises their problems and at the same time is a satisfactory solution to what I think is the most worrying feature of the whole Bill.

Mr. Turton: I have rather more affection for the new Clause than has my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). A strong case has not been made out by the Gosling Committee for shifting the responsibility for the repair of stiles from the highway authority, where it generally is, to the owner or occupier. I leave out gates, for they


are quite a different matter. In the interests of those who will use the footpath it will be far better not to disturb the liability but to look at the problem from the farmer's point of view. He wants his field encased by a hedge or a post and rails. As there are footpaths through it somebody will have to enable the pedestrian to get over the hedge or the post and rails, and therefore the stile is introduced. Generally—certainly in my area—the obligation to repair a stile is on the highway authority. The case of a gate is different, because that is normally erected to keep stock in where there has been a right of way, though I accept that this varies by custom in different parts of the country.
I beg the Government to hesitate before accepting this part of the Gosling Report. As I see it, the Committee said that in general it would like this shifting of responsibility, but that where an owner could establish that he had dedicated a path expressly excluding liability for maintenance he should be reimbursed in full. It is noticeable that the Government have not accepted that part of paragraph 5 of the Report, which I suggest is not very well designed. What about the cases where owners from time immemorial have made it clear that they have no liability under the Enclosure Acts for the stiles? There are many old Enclosure Acts in which that has been laid down. But the Government should not suddenly at this stage thrust the responsibility on to the farmers, that is a burden that should not be placed on them at present.
There is one small point that is not clear in either the new Clause or Clause 22, and that concerns the position in my area, in North Yorkshire, where one finds footbridges with a stile or gate at the end for the protection of pedestrians. Clearly, that should go with the footbridge. I gather that the Government agree that a footbridge is the responsibility of the highway authority, and it will be ridiculous if the footbridge is to be maintained by the highway authority but the approach—a stile where the pedestrian comes on to it—becomes the farmer's responsibility. I beg the Government to think again about this, because in my area where there are many ghylls and ravines it is a very normal practice to have a

bridge with a stile or a gate at the approach to it.
If the responsibility is to be shifted it is wrong to place the huge burden of 75 per cent. of the cost on farmers, limiting the recovery to a minimum of 25 per cent. It is far better when drafting legislation not to say "not less than" but to state exactly the percentage that should be paid, because, as my hon. Friend said, one always finds that the minimum tends to become the maximum paid by a local authority.
If the responsibility is shifted, and we are as ungenerous as the Government propose, the stiles will not be maintained properly, or in some cases will be maintained in a very dangerous way by the farmer. I know many of my constituent farmers who will see when they maintain a stile that they have a nice little piece of barbed wire, which they love using, on the top rail. I warn pedestrians that it is far better to have their interests looked after by a highway authority than by a farmer, who will be looking after his own interests and deterring pedestrians rather than encouraging them.

Mr. Anderson: I shall not rehearse the arguments already raised by the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) in what I thought was a good and very conciliatory speech, nor the arguments I raised in Committee in favour of a 50–50 breakdown.
This is not a party political debate in any sense but rather one about where it is equitable to draw the line of responsibility. As I maintained in Committee and still believe, a 50–50 breakdown is on the whole likely to be most equitable and to be greeted as most fair by the country people on whom we shall rely for carrying out the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. James Ramsden: This question does not involve really big money for local authorities, even if they have to bear the whole cost and continue to be responsible for maintenance. On reflection since Committee, I think that that would be the right course. It does not involve really big money for farmers although it involves a certain amount of inconvenience and, for the small farmer, a considerable outlay of money.
We are most likely to get the matter right if we try to take the discussion out


of the realms of responsibility under the law, where it has been so far, and of the option between 25 per cent. or 50 per cent. and try to relate it to fulfilling the main purpose of the Bill—to get more people out into the countryside to enjoy themselves there, to make sure that they are welcome when they go there, and to see that the Bill's aims are supported by the feeling of the local people. We have all agreed that the Bill cannot work without that.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) that the impact on the farming community of suddenly finding themselves responsible for the maintenance of stiles will be considerable. I do not think that it will conduce to the good relations which are necessary if the Bill is to work properly.
I have discussed this with a gentleman in my constituency with whom I have been in close touch about matters affecting the interests of ramblers, because he knows a great deal about the subject and has successfully represented their interests in our locality. He feels the same way. He does not think that this is a reasonable imposition to lay on the farming community and he believes that if it is imposed it will not make for the achievement of the sort of relations between farmers and ramblers which both sides wish to see.
I hope that the Government will think again about this. It would be reasonable, following the Gosling Report, for the local authorities to accept the duty of repair and to make arrangements with the local occupiers to do the work, since they would do it more practically and more cheaply. I hope that the Government will do this in the interests of good relations between the farming community and those going into the countryside and will look at the matter again from that point of view.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. MacDermot: I am not seeking to bring the debate to a close, for I know that a number of other hon. Members wish to speak. This is a difficult topic and I do not pretend that it is easy to get the right answer, but it might be helpful if I put forward the considerations which the Gosling Committee

had before it and the reason for these proposals.
The new Clause and the Amendments raise two questions. The first is where the duty should lie to do the job of maintenance and repair. The second is who should pay for it and, following that, whether the cost could be shared and in what proportions. First—where should the duty lie? Right hon. and hon. Members opposite have been talking as though the Gosling Committee was making a recommendation for transferring an existing liability from the local authority to the landowner or occupier. That is not correct and it is not a view which the Committee itself took, because it said in paragraph 43:
The intention of the present law on maintenance of stiles and gates is not immediately apparent. There is much confusion because it is not clear whether the liability rests on the landowner or occupier on the one hand or on the highway authority on the other.
Clearly, it is unsatisfactory that in a matter of this kind, there should be doubt as to where liability lies. We know from practical experience how rickety stiles can be. The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) spoke of elderly people using them often and emphasised both the importance of the stiles being properly maintained and the question of where the liability should rest being put beyond doubt. The Committee recommended, with eminent good sense, that the most satisfactory course is to place liability on people in a position to do the job best and most cheaply. It said in paragraph 44:
 …in the interest of keeping these costs to a minimum and also for practical reasons we recommend that owners and occupiers should be responsible for the task of maintenance.
Surely that is something that we should clearly accept. For that reason, if for that reason alone, I would advise rejection of new Clause 9, which would seek to place the responsibility on the local authorities.
Secondly, there is the question of payment. Again, of course, there is doubt at the moment as to where legal liability stands. The arguments are fairly clear. Those who think that the landowner or occupier should pay say that the footpath is a highway—and so it is—over which the public has the right of way and that the public has no need for stiles or for


gates. They say that it is the farmer who needs them to keep his stock in and that this is why there is a gate or stile, otherwise the footpath would continue through a gap in the hedge or fence. On this argument, one sees that the responsibility should rest in a sense with the farmer, not only to erect the gate or stile but to maintain and repair it, since it is for his benefit that it exists.
The argument the other way is that the use of these footpaths is the use of the general public and that it is usually the general public who get the advantage of being able to use them. Therefore when, as a result of their use, these stiles or gates fall into disrepair, it is right that the public should pay for their maintenance and upkeep.
If one is minded to attach weight to each argument and to say that there is something to be said on both sides, this would lead most people to think in terms of a 50–50 conclusion and say, "Split the difference and let the local authorities contribute 50 per cent. of the cost ". I understand the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Anderson) to be arguing that it would be better to have a fixed contribution from public funds in all cases. This is not what the Gosling Committee recommended. It accepted that there is a strong case for a substantial part of the cost of maintenance of stiles and gates to be met from the public purse and it recommended that owners and occupiers should, as of right, receive a reasonable contribution.
The fact that the Committee made its recommendation in these terms indicates to me that it thought that there should not be a fixed contribution, because whatever sum one fixed would tend to be unfair in some cases. We have heard references in debates—I am not sure whether it was referred to in the Gosling Report—to vandalism in the countryside and to stiles which had been erected being destroyed in a short time by vandals. If a case of that kind occurred, it seems to me that, if one were to have a flexible system, there would be a strong argument for saying that there should be a 100 per cent. contribution from public funds.
At the moment, there is a power for local authorities to contribute, and I

understand that in some cases they exercise that power, so that, on occasion, they contribute 100 per cent. The question is whether we want to give effect to the Gosling recommendation by providing that a contribution should be made and leaving it to the local authorities' discretion to decide what is the reasonable contribution to make in any particular circumstances.
One can try to marry that provision either to a maximum contribution or to a minimum contribution by the local authorities. The great danger of that is that we know from experience that any minimum contribution laid down tends to become the maximum. The higher the minimum contribution is fixed, the greater is the tendency. That is why we believe the right solution to be a flexible one with power to pay up to 100 per cent., and since there was a feeling that there should be a minimum contribution, we thought it better to recommend aiming at a low minimum contribution—and it is low at 25 per cent.—because then there would be a good prospect that it would not be treated as the maximum and that the local authorities would direct their minds to what was a fair contribution to make in each particular case.
Once one shifted that minimum up to, say, 50 per cent. contribution, it is my belief that it would become the maximum. If that is what we want, we should say, "It is better to have a fixed contribution and make it 50 per cent., and be content with that 50 per cent. contribution in all cases". If the feeling of the House is that this would be the better solution, I would be prepared to agree to it. Provided it is workable, my belief is that there would be more justice in a flexible system under which the duty was on the local authority to make a reasonable contribution. That would be in accordance with the Gosling Committee's recommendations.

Mr. Turton: The hon. and learned Gentleman is talking of reasonable contributions recommended in the Gosling Report. The Gosling Committee went further and said that in certain cases there should be full reimbursement. I do not think that the Gosling Report put the case correctly. It said: "Where there had been an expressed intention." It ought also to have included:
…where there is an express legal liability on the highway authority.

Mr. MacDermot: If one put it in that form one is back to all the doubts and complexities of the present legal situation. I have a brief here, several pages long, dealing with the legal points. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the situation is complex. It is a matter which is open in any particular case to a very great deal of argument as to where the legal duty rests. I have not forgotten the right hon. Gentleman's point about the last sentence of paragraph 45. We have provided for that in Amendment 63. The first subsection provides that where an owner had dedicated a path expressly excluding his liability for maintenance, he will be entitled to be reimbursed in full. Otherwise, we have provided that it will be open to the local authority in any particular case to pay up to 100 per cent.
Looking at our Amendment and the wording of the Clause, I see in subsection (3):
The highway authority shall have power to make contributions towards expenses incurred in compliance with subsection (1) above.
If hon. Members think that it would be helpful, I would be prepared to consider introducing in another place a wording—pitting that positively and adopting the wording of the Gosling recommendation—that the authority shall make such contribution as in all the circumstances appears to it reasonable, or words to that effect, and then provide for a minimum contribution of 25 per cent. This seems to be a provision that would give some flexibility and result in justice in a greater number of cases.
There was an occasion when a former Member of this House, Mr. D. N. Pritt, opened a case in the Court of Appeal, against a judgment, which had been described by the judge who gave it as "rough justice", by questioning whether this was rough justice or just roughness. The danger of the 50–50 solution is that it will be just roughness.

Mr. Channon: Can the Minister of State repeat what might be proposed to be in place of subsection (3)?

Mr. MacDermot: I was only seeking to adopt the wording of the Gosling recommendation, and say that the highway authority shall make such provision toward the expenses incurred in compliance with subsection (1) as in all the

circumstances of the case, appears to it reasonable, or words to that effect. I would then suggest that we added the provision that in any event the contribution should be a minimum of 25 per cent.

Mr. Pardoe: Farmers, through their union, have welcomed the increased access to the countryside. As the Minister has said, all we are trying to do is to decide who will pay. Nothing costs nothing, and this greater freedom of access will cost someone something. We have to ask who will gain. As far as we can see the farmers will not gain anything from this increased access. The people who will gain are those who have the greater access and, to a certain extent perhaps, local authorities who may benefit from increased tourism. The farmer will gain nothing but it will cost him a great deal.
He will be forced to pay the price of other people's freedom and this is wrong in principle. It is not just a question of putting the present costs on the farmer's shoulders. To some extent in some places he already bears these. In some respects, with gates as opposed to stiles, he has this responsibility. It is not only the present costs, because it has already been pointed out that we have 581 people to the square mile. There will inevitably be more people and more and more will walk down the footpaths, climbing gates and stiles. Wear and tear will be considerably greater.
The situation has vastly changed since the purpose of the footpath was to get from A to B by a few whose daily chores made it necessary for them to walk to work. Their interest was to maintain stiles and footpaths in adequate repair because they had to use them, morning and evening. Vandalism and hooliganism have been mentioned, and unfortunately some people who use the footpaths will have no such interest in them, because they will probably use them only once in their lives. Unfortunately, some human beings will tear almost anything apart.
8.15 p.m.
Gosling has made a rather strange distinction. It is said that there is a strong case for a substantial part of the cost of maintenance for stiles and gates to be made from the public purse, but he goes on to say that for administrative reasons,


owners and occupiers should be responsible for maintenance. The hon. and learned Gentleman made the distinction that there is the cost on one side and on the other the physical business of doing the work. Rather than worry too much about the 50 per cent. of 75 per cent.—and I have already made it clear that I favour the public authorities' paying a larger share since the farmers are being forced to pay too much—why try to divide the work? It is extremely difficult to assess labour in this. Why not leave the labour element out of it, leave it to the farming community to do?
In most small farms the farmer will do it himself. We should fix whatever percentage we decide upon on the actual cost of materials. I can see the distinction about administration; it will be extremely difficult to assess how much time anyone is spending bashing in posts for a stile, putting the plank across and hammering the nails in. The actual cost of the materials is not open to anything like as much doubt, and would be administratively simpler.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: I should like to congratulate my hon. and learned Friend on the terms of his reply. The principle which he enunciated is perfectly right, and I am happy to say that I accept it. I am a little unhappy about the wording of the Amendment, and I very much fear that it might be misconstrued by local authorities. I should like my hon. and learned Friend to clear this up. Amendment 63 reads:
(4) The highway authority shall, in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (3) above, contribute not less than one-quarter of any expenses shown to their satisfaction to have been reasonably incurred.
(5) Subsection (1) above shall not apply to any structure if and so long as the highway authority are, under an agreement in writing with any other person, liable to maintain the structure.
I am not a lawyer or a county surveyor, but a layman. I must confess that my reading of that subsection suggests that all that I. as the local authority official, would be obliged to contribute would be 25 per cent. My hon. and learned Friend must spell this out. He said that this is the minimum, and he is quite prepared to envisage circumstances in which local authorities could bear the full cost. I very much fear that local

authorities will read him in the way in which I have read him, and will contribute no more than 25 per cent. I should like him to make the principle a little clearer in Amendments tabled in another place. Alternatively, he might do it in a circular to local authorities, to bring home to them that the 25 per cent. is a minimum and there are certain circumstances where they will be expected to pay more.
I turn to the circumstances in which I feel that local authorities should be encouraged to pay more. There was reference in Committee, and there is reference in the White Paper, to setting up long-distance routes. We know how very few new creations there are. We hope that long-distance routes will be set up. New creations require the co-operation of landowners. My hon. and learned Friend will be seized of the point when I suggest that landowners will be reluctant to agree to creating new footpaths if it involves considerable obligations in respect of stiles and gates.
Therefore, when it is right and proper for the local authority or the National Parks Commission to meet the full cost of stiles and gates, I hope that, perhaps not in Amendments, but in circulars, my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will inform local authorities that it is not unreasonable for them to pay up to 100 per cent. of the cost.

Sir Frank Pearson: I have not the advantage of having followed all the debates in Committee, but I wish to intervene because this is one of the most important proposals and the debate on it is of extreme importance to people living in the countryside, and we want the countryside to be enjoyed very much more than it has been by townspeople. The right of use of footpaths and bridlepaths is the centre of the problem.
We should consider how the footpaths originally came to be used. In the past, they were purely local amenities used by local people. By the Bill, we are substantially extending their use. Most people in the countryside would welcome this extension. Under the old system, when the use of footpaths was relatively limited, it was not a heavy burden for the people through whose land the footpath ran to maintain stiles and gates. But we are now altering the whole concept of the use of footpaths. We want to encourage


people to use footpaths, but this will be a very heavy burden on the people through whose land they run.
I do not think that the Minister of State was entirely right in saying that it was rational to place the full burden on the landowner or farmer. If the Bill is to succeed, we must have the willing collaboration of the farming community and the landlords. It is niggling little points like this which make the Government appear to be mean-minded. These are the sort of points which will put the landowners and tenant farmers against the Bill. I ask the Minister to reconsider this matter. There is not a big sum involved. Once we extend the right to use footpaths to a much wider public, and once we look on the use of footpaths as something of social importance and national good, it is right to say that the public authority should stand the greater part of the cost of maintaining stiles and gates.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) made a valid point. It is already accepted that local authorities shall maintain bridges. On my own land, there is a path which goes across three bridges. They are all maintained by the local authority. If anything happens on them, it is not the landowner but the local authority which is responsible for the damage. Is it not reasonable to take that a step further and say that the same principle should apply to gates and stiles? I cannot help feeling that that must be right.
The hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) made the point that by laying down a 25 per cent. limit we are laying down a limit to which local authorities will say that they will go. I ask the Minister of State to have another look at the matter. I should like him to go the whole hog and say that highway authorities shall be responsible in full for the maintenance of stiles and gates. If he cannot go as far as that, I ask him to go much further than he has gone up to now. This is a point which could create justifiable ill feeling and we do not want that to happen. The landowners and tenant farmers wish to encourage the public to go to the countryside, but if we lay restrictions of this sort on them we are going the right way about turning them against the Bill.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: I have not had the advantage of seeing the brief which the Minister of State has in his possession. That may be a piece of good fortune, because, apparently, he feels that, as a result of the brief, his view of the law is rather obscure. I set out my view of the law on Second Reading and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be pleased to know that I do not propose to go over it. However, I heard nothing in Committee which led me to alter my view that the liability for the maintenance of stiles is squarely on the highway authority. Therefore, I should find the greatest difficulty in accepting paragraph 43 of the Gosling Report. It follows that this legislation alters the burden on the local authorities and places it on shoulders which did not carry it before.
A point to which I referred once or twice in Committee, and to which I have not had an answer, is that, if we do that, what will be the position concerning negligence if a stile is not properly maintained? I think that the law is reasonably clear. One of the cases is Rundle v. Hearle, which doubtless the Minister of State will find in his brief and which he knows all about. The position concerning negligence is quite clearly covered at present, but I am not sure that it will be after the Bill is passed. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will consider this.
Secondly, the Gosling Committee said, in paragraph 44 of its Report, that
a substantial part of the cost of maintenance
should
be met from the public purse".
When the Minister of State made his Second Reading speech, he referred to the "affluent motorised society". That phrase has remained with me throughout these proceedings. It is the affluent motorised society for which the Minister is legislating, and it is that society which will use the stiles. If the Gosling Committee says that a substantial part of the cost of maintaining stiles for the affluent motorised society should be met from the public purse, I find it difficult to accept the proposition that 25 per cent. should be written in the Bill. Therefore, I ask the Minister of State to say that a much higher figure should be written in. There is no reason why more than 50 per cent. should


not be written in, but I see no justification for starting at 25 per cent.
The Minister said that the work was to be done by the people in the best position to do it. By that he meant that the farmer living near the stile can more easily do it than anybody else. Most farmers, when they drive around the countryside and see the staff which is maintained by highway authorities would dearly like to have the same amount of labour available to them to do the work on the rights of way. Most farmers these days run their farms with very few staff indeed. The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) referred to a farm where there are 34 stiles. This farm was composed of 40 fields, 18 of which had no rights of way and the remaining 22 had one to three rights of way in each. That is a sizeable burden to place on any small organisation, but that is what we are asking the farmer to take on.
8.30 p.m.
A constituent of mine only a few days ago told me that in the middle of his farm there is a disused iron mine, which is not unusual in Sussex. For over 100 years there have been seven rights of way leading to the place where this iron mine used to be. My constituent runs a small farm, but he will be responsible for maintaining stiles on seven rights of way which do not go anywhere.
The Minister said that stiles are there for the benefit of the farmer. I hope he will think again about that, because the farmer could farm quite happily without any stiles. He does not use stiles. It is merely that the right of way happens to be there and it is there for the use of the public.
If my view of the law is correct, it is the affluent motorised society that the Minister has been talking about which uses the stiles. Therefore, the Gosling Committee's recommendation, that a substantial part of the cost should be met from the public purse, is right.
For these reasons, I sincerely hope that the Minister will have another look at this proposition and consider whether he cannot do something better than is suggested.

Mr. Carol Johnson: We have had a wide-ranging debate and I do not propose

to repeat the arguments which have already been made, nor to rehash the arguments we had in Standing Committee.
The Minister of State has gone some way to meet the points urged by the Opposition concerning new Clause 9. He has moved from Clause 22(3), as it now stands, where the highway authority simply has the power to make contributions, because Amendment No. 63 says,
The highway authority shall … contribute not less than one quarter of any expenses shown to their satisfaction to have been reasonably incurred.
One point of difference is that this is a permissive power and, as I read new Clause 9, would impose an obligation on the highway authority to make a contribution in all cases of 75 per cent. What is at issue, therefore, is, first, whether it shall be mandatory, and, secondly, what the contribution shall be.
The Gosling Committee used language which suggests that 25 per cent. is in these circumstances not adequate. The use of the phrase in paragraph 44,
there is a strong case for a substantial part of the cost of maintenance of stiles and gate,, to be met from the public purse",
would not be met by a contribution of 25 per cent. I do not think that the Minister would argue that that was a substantial contribution. Therefore, I ask the Minister, if he cannot extend the offer that he has made, first, to find some way of writing into the Bill that the contribution shall be made as of right, and, secondly, that in assessing it it shall be made clear that, if 25 per cent. or any other percentage is included, this is not to be taken as applicable to all cases. It may be to the disadvantage of farmers if we write in 50 per cent. because there may be cases where a grant of 75 per cent. or even 100 per cent. would be payable. I gather that there are cases where a 100 per cent. contribution is made. If we write in 50 per cent. it might be to the disadvantage of those who would otherwise receive a higher sum. Therefore, I hope that serious consideration will be given to this aspect.
We have long passed the stage where we can argue about legal niceties. I was impressed by what underlines the suggestion of the Gosling Committee: that it is concerned not with the past but with the future. It stresses the present and prospective recreational use of footpaths.


I would therefore ask the Minister of State to go a little beyond what he said, and to make it quite clear that there is no limit to the amount of contribution. It might then be possible for us to agree generally that in another place a new Clause could be introduced or an Amendment made to cover all these points.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: We have had an informed and serious debate on a difficult matter. We have heard legal opinion from both sides of the House and we have heard a great number of people with practical experience of the problems of stiles in the countryside.
I would say two things to the Minister. He quite rightly said that we were discussing two points: first, a question of law, whether it was the responsibility of the local authority or the occupier; and secondly, the question of how much who should pay.
On the first point he came down on one side. I do not argue with this; he is a lawyer and I am not. I do not have his ability to get the material and to understand it. The Minister must realise that he has definitely said that in his view the law should be changed to make the occupier of the land responsible for repairing stiles. Other points were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine) to cast doubt upon this assertion. The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member are bath lawyers. Who am I to decide between them? All I am saying is that the right hon. Member the Minister of State has come down on the first alternative on one side of the fence.
If responsibility is put on the owner, then I agree with many of my hon. Friends and with hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House when they say that a substantial contribution must be given to the occupier. This is borne out at page 12 of the Interim Report of the Gosling Committee. The Minister of State thought the occupier would do better if the minimum were 25 per cent. than if a definite figure of 50 per cent. were included. I must point out to him that if he were to follow our Amendmmt in line 2, to leave out "quarter" and insert "half" his Amendment would then read—
 The highway authority shall, in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (3) above,

contribute not less than one half of any expenses
I do not understand how he could argue that a local authority, faced with these words, would be less likely to make a suitable reimbursement to an owner than if the minimum limit were 25 per cent. I have sat on a council for a long time, as have many other hon. Members. We know the working of the minds of the chairman of the finance committee, the county treasurer and the city treasurer.
The hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) rightly said that, if the wording is "not less than 25 per cent." it will be 25 per cent. except in very exceptional circumstances, and of course in regard to Section 5 which he has referred to. I put to the hon. Gentleman that the hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson), who probably knows as much about the problems of walking on footpaths as anyone in the House, discussed this matter not only in Committee but also with a good deal of fervour this evening. He has appealed to the Minister to reconsider the figure.
If we lumber occupiers of land for ever more with the responsibility of keeping stiles and gates, which can cost a considerable amount of money, if we take away what, in the estimation of many occupiers of land, is today the responsibility of the highway authority, then I am certain, and my hon. and right hon. Friends are certain, that the figure should not be less than 50 per cent.
In what he has to say, I hope that the Minister of State will go along with the feeling of the whole House that a slight adjustment in the figure is necessary. If he will say that he is happy to look at the position again and, at a later stage, will bring forward the figure of 50 per cent. as the basic minimum and not less than 50 per cent., we will accept the position. On the other hand, if he cannot, I must tell him that we on this side feel strongly about the matter. What he has said so far is inadequate and, much as we dislike doing it on a Clause about which there has been a great measure of agreement on both sides, we shall feel bound to divided the House.

Mr. MacDermot: I invited hon. Members to say whether they would prefer a fixed percentage or a flexible system. Apart from those hon. Members who


asked for a 100 per cent. contribution, no one asked for a fixed percentage.
If it is argued that a 25 per cent. minimum is in danger of becoming a maximum, my retort is that a 50 per cent. contribution is certain to be a maximum. That is why I say that, if hon. Members are really strongly in favour of a 50 per cent. minimum, let us settle for a 50 per cent. fixed contribution. However, that would produce very rough justice. Surely all the arguments about the minds of a Committee faced with a 25 per cent. contribution apply a fortiori to a 50 per cent. contribution, and no one will get more. My view is that the justice of the matter lies in a flexible system. As a general rule, I think upwards of 50 per cent. ought to be paid by way of contribution. But if one is to have a flexible system which allows 100 per cent. in some cases, it is right also that one should meet the case where a person would not get more than 25 per cent.
The cost of a repair will be affected greatly by the extent to which maintenance has been done. If a stile or gate is inspected regularly, and a repair is carried out at an early stage, it will be a cheap job, but if defects are allowed to go on uncorrected, complete replacement will eventually be required. Whereas before, it would have been possible to get away with a cheap repair—it will now be necessary to install a new stile or gate and it will be due to the negligence or failure of the owner. In those circumstances, it does not follow that, if what is required is a new gate or stile, it would be fair that the local authority should contribute more than 25 per cent. That is not a typical case, but if one is to have a flexible system to allow for 100 per cent., it is reasonable also to have a low minimum.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: I agree about a flexible system, but would my hon. and learned Friend consider the possibility of stating no percentage at all?

Mr. MacDermot: That is what I had originally in the Bill. I think that would be the best solution. I would prefer to change the wording and follow the recommendations of the Gosling Committee and, instead of merely giving them power to make a contribution, put on them the duty to make a contribution of what is

a reasonable amount in all the circumstances. I think that that would be better. However, I was under immense pressure to introduce a minimum, and, because I wanted to keep the system flexible, I acceded to it and said that in that case we should have a low minimum.

Mr. Ramsden: Ignoring percentages, if it were made clear that the contribution would be the reasonable cost, that would be acceptable, but that has not been made clear. A contribution has been taken to be some small proportion of the cost which it might seem fit to the local authority to provide. If the Government can endorse the principle that the contribution is the reasonable cost which, if done by local labour would obviously be less than if done by the county council, that would be acceptable.

Mr. MaeDermot: What the hon. Gentleman is arguing for now is 100 per cent. For a number of reasons, I do not think that that is right.
8.45 p.m.
May I comment on one or two further points before making my final recommendation? The hon. Gentleman the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) asked why the work should not be divided. I do not think he meant that literally, that some labourers should do one part of the work while others did other parts, but rather that he was suggesting that the division should be between the local authority which should pay for materials and the farmer who should pay for labour. But that might work hardly for the farmer where no new materials were required and the whole of the cost was for labour, so that it would not be a very fair division.
My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) raised the question of long-distance routes and hoped there would be power to take on the whole of the responsibility for the maintenance of new routes created. There would be power under the new Amendment No. 63, because they can by agreement repay the whole amount. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson), in arguing the 100 per cent. case, was arguing that the principle should be the same for stiles and gates as for footbridges. I do not agree, because


the reason why it is right for a footbridge to be maintained by the local authority is that it is on the highway, for which the local authority is responsible, whereas a stile or gate is an obstruction to the highway, put there in the interests of the farmer. This is an argument for saying that the farmer ought to pay; and of course there were arguments the other way, but I do not want to be identified with one side or the other of those arguments. That is the reason why the treatment in respect of footbridges is different.
The hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine) asked where responsibility for negligence will lie. Hitherto, there has been doubt, but in future there will be no doubt. It will be on the landowner or occupier. That is made very c ear by the provisions of Clause 22(1), which means in practice that farmers will need to insure against this liability. This is a factor which ought to be borne in mind in considering what is a fair contribution to be made to farmers out of public funds.

Sir Frank Pearson: Will it be possible for that to be set off against tax?

Mr. MacDermot: That is something the hon Gentleman had better ask my successor, the Financial Secretary. What I have suggested as the kind of Amend

ment we should move in another place would, I believe, meet the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson) in making clear that 25 per cent. was not intended to be the norm, as it were; it was really meant as a minimum and there would be a duty on them to pay a contribution which would be reasonable in all circumstances.

For the reasons I have given, I still advise the House that I believe this is a better solution if we are to have a flexible system. If hon. Gentlemen want to say "No" to this, we must say we feel there is too great a risk that the farmer will be done down if he only gets 25 per cent. in all cases. I am prepared to go for the higher fixed percentage, but I believe it should be a fixed percentage, and my advice to the Committee is that the new Clause No. 9 should be rejected, our Amendment No. 63 should be accepted and that the Amendment to it should be rejected. If that is done, there is my undertaking to move in another place an Amendment to amend the wording of subsection (3) in the words I have indicated.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 137, Noes 203.

Division No. 116.]
AYES
[8.50 p.m.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kimball, Marcus


Astor, John
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Doughty, Charles
Lane, David


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Drayson, G. B.
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Eden, Sir John
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. &amp; Fhm)
Errington, Sir Eric
Loveys, W. H.


Biffen, John
Eyre, Reginald
Lubbock, Eric


Biggs-Davison, John
Fisher, Nigel
MacArthur, Ian


Black, Sir Cyril
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'tv)


Blaker, Peter
Fortescue, Tim
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Boardman, Tom
Gibson-Watt, David
Maddan, Martin


Body, Richard
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maginnis, John E.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mawby, Ray


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Goodhew, Victor
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Brewis, John
Gower, Raymond
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Grieve, Percy
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Miscampbell, Norman


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gurden, Harold
Monro, Hector


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
More, Jasper


Buck, Anthony (Colchester)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hawkins, Paul
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Campbell, Gordon
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Carlisle, Mark
Hiley, Joseph
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Channon, H. P. G.
Hill, J. E. B.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Holland, Philip
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Clark, Henry
Hooson, Emlyn
Pardoe, John


Clegg, Walter
Hornby, Richard
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Cooke, Robert
Hunt, John
Peel, John


Costain, A. P.
Iremonger, T. L.
Percival, Ian


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pink, R. Bonner


Dance, James
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pounder, Rafton


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Dendes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Jopling, Michael
Prior, J. M. L.




Pym, Francis
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Speed, Keith
Vickers, Dame Joan


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Stainton, Keith
Ward, Dame Irene


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Webster, David


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Ridsdale, Julian
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Royle, Anthony
Teeling, Sir William
Worsley, Marcus


Scott, Nicholas
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Williams, W. D. (Dudley)


Scott-Hopkins, James
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy



Sharples, Richard
Tilney, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Silvester, Frederick
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Mr. Anthony Grant and


Smith Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Mr. Timothy Kitson




NOES


Abse, Leo
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Norwood, Christopher


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Oakes, Gordon


Alldritt, Walter
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
O'Malley, Brian


Armstrong, Ernest
Hamling, William
Oram, Albert E.


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Harman, William
Orbach, Maurice


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Orme, Stanley


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Haseldine, Norman
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Beaney, Alan
Hazell, Bert
Owen, Witt (Morpeth)


Bence, Cyril
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Padley, Walter


Bidwell, Sydney
Hilton, W. S.
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Binns, John
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Palmer, Arthur


Bishop, E. S.
Hooley, Frank
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Blackburn, F.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Boston, Terence
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Howie, W.
Pentland, Norman


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hoy, James
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Brooks, Edwin
Huckfield, Leslie
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Probert, Arthur


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Randall, Harry


Cant, R. B.
Hynd, John
Rankin, John


Carmichael, Neil
Janner, Sir Barnett
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jeger, Mrs.Lena (H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,s.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Rose, Paul


Coe, Denis
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Coleman, Donald
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Conlan, Bernard
Kelley, Richard
Short, Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lawson, George
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Dalyell, Tam
Leadbitter, Ted
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Skeffington, Arthur


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lee, John (Reading)
Small, William


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Snow, Julian


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Lomas, Kenneth
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Loughlin, Charles
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Luard, Evan
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Dempsey, James
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Dewar, Donald
McBride, Neil
Swain, Thomas


Dickens, James
McCann, John
Swingler, Stephen


Doig, Peter
MacDermot, Niall
Symonds, J. B.


Driberg, Tom
Macdonald, A. H.
Thornton, Ernest


Dunn, James A.
McGuire, Michael
Tinn, James


Dunnett, Jack
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Urwin, T. W.


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Mackie, John
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Eadie, Alex
Maclennan, Robert
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wallace, George


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Watkins, David (Consett)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Ellis, John
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Weitzman, David


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Wellbeloved, James


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mapp, Charles
White, Mrs. Eirene


Fernyhough, E.
Marks, Kenneth
Whitlock, William


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Marquand, David
Wilkins, W. A.


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Maxwell, Robert
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mendelson, J. J.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Foley, Maurice
Mikardo, Ian
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Ford, Ben
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Forrester, John
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Winnick, David


Fowler, Gerry
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Galpern, Sir Myer
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Yates, Victor


Garrett, W. E.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)



Gourlay, Harry
Moyle, Roland
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Murray, Albert
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn.Philip (Derby, S.)
Mr. Eric G. Varley.

New Clause No. 13.

AMENDMENT OF S. 89(1) OF THE ACT OF 1949.

Section 89(1) of the Act of 1949 shall be 2.mended by the insertion of the words ' and maintain ' after the word plant '.—[Mr. Peter M. Jackson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I apologise for returning to a matter which was debated, perhaps not as fully as it might have been, in Committee. It is however, a matter of considerable consequence and perhaps I should not be too fulsome in my apologies. The purpose of the new Clause is to amend Section 89(1) of the 1949 Act to allow local authorities to receive grants in aid not only in respect of tree planting but also in respect of tree maintenance work.
I know that my hon. Friend who is to reply to this debate has every sympathy with me in this matter. I wish to get on the record the reply he made in Committee. My hon. Friend accepted that it is only right and proper that trees should be adequately maintained. He went on to say that he was very much seized of my remarks, and he added:
If we can meet it, I should like to do so. I am not in any way opposed to meeting that problem … I should like to look again at the question of maintenance of more mature tries to see whether we can do anything about it. I think that the arguments will be economic rather than philosophical."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A; 13th February, 1968; c. 930–1.]
I believe there is no division between the two sides of the House on this matter. The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) supported me. I think my hon. Friend misunderstood the purpose of the Amendment I moved in Committee. In his reply, he spoke about grants being given for planting and of budgeting being over a period of five years. Thus, according to his argument, there was an element of maintenance. I said that I am not so much concerned with replanting but with the problems of mature trees.
I am not alone in this. The Commission, in its Report, was also seized of the problem and urged upon the Government the need for amending legislation to allow grants to be paid in respect

of maintenance. I quote from the Report of 1961, Appendix E, paragraph 7. It says in a general reference to the increasing grants:
The cost of acquisition, maintenance and management should qualify for grant …
That appears in italics. The Report spells out the general case for increasing the number of grants referring to trees and says:
These powers would be of wide application and benefit. A particularly good example of the use which might be made of them is in the acquisition and management of amenity woodlands. The Commission's efforts to get this done under existing powers, either by the Forestry Commission or the Minister, have not so far proved successful.
In this matter I am not a lone voice crying in the wilderness; I have the support of the Commission in calling for a change in the legislation.
Much of the work of maintenance in woodlands is continuous. It takes place all the year round. One thinks of work in nurseries, of the preparation of semi-mature trees and actual tree surgery. These matters do not qualify for grants. Local authorities would be somewhat inhibited from undertaking this work, yet it is very necessary that it should be undertaken. It is not enough to say, as my hon. Friend said, that planning authorities can recoup a certain cost through thinnings. I believe I rebutted that argument successfully when I pointed out in Committee that we were not concerned with replanting but with hundreds of thousands of mature trees which require to be maintained.
The cost of the work of tree surgery is appreciable. I refer to the British Standard. My hon. Friend hopes, as we all hope, that all tree work in the future will conform to the recommendations of British Standard 398 of 1966. I do not know if he is familiar with the terms of the British Standard but if he looked up the matter he would realise that a lot of this work is very expensive. To quote one or two examples: cavity treatment costs money; reducing and shaping and bracing all cost money. A lot of unskilled people would not undertake this work but if the work were to be undertaken in conformity with the British Standard it would cost money, and one feels that local authorities, because such very necessary work would not qualify


for a grant, would be reluctant to put the work in the hands of a competent tree surgeon.
I cannot feel that when the 1949 Act was drafted the Parliamentary draftsmen were sufficiently cognisant of the problems which would be involved as a result of tree planting. Had there been a Parliamentary draftsman with a knowledge of forestry and an interest in trees the point I am urging upon my hon. Friend would have been adequately covered. To me it is an absurdity that we give grants of 75 per cent. for planting trees and do do not make adequate provision for their subsequent maintenance.
I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will meet me on this point and that we shall have adequate plans not only for tree planting but also for tree maintenance.

Mr. Skeffington: I know that my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) speaks with real passion about trees, and this is a feeling I share. We will not go through the personal revelations of each other's secret hobbies as we did in Committee. I will only say to him and to the House that so far as he is speaking about the need for these things to be done, particularly in large amenity woodlands, or indeed woodlands anywhere, I share that interest. I said to him in Committee, and I think I had better repeat it because it is perhaps not generally realised, that the way in which the grants have been administered under Section 89(1) of the 1949 Act has been to pay a grant not only for the planting but also for work during a period of four or five years afterwards. One cannot just plant a tree by putting it in a hole and leaving it. There has to be preparation, the soil may have to be drained, and there are fencing and ditching and many other operations. The grant has always taken this into account and if a tree does not taken within a reasonable period a replacement is generally allowed. So this grant has been applied in a way which I think has been both intelligent and not ungenerous. For a period of four or five years afterwards the grant payable has covered far more than the mere act of putting the tree into the ground.
The payment of the grant for this purpose is covered in the appropriate sections of the Bill. Clause 27 makes it possible first of all for a 75 per cent. grant to be paid instead of the smaller grant. It will apply to the whole country as opposed to only a small area and I have every reason to think, and will take some steps to ensure, that the grant will continue to be applied in the same way. This is a tremendous extension of a power which has proved very successful in getting trees planted.
My hon. Friend argues that, beyond that period, and certainly in the case of mature trees, continual work must be done by experts to keep them in the best trim. If splits develop, they must be covered. All this work is recognised as requiring a high degree of skill. When one is considering the provision of national funds for this and other purposes, I bring the House back to the point that these major grants from central authorities are to cover the initial expenditure. We should be opening the gates very wide if, having paid the 75 per cent. grant for the heavy initial expenditure, the central Government were to continue for an indefinite time with a supplementary grant. I could not agree to that principle in this connection any more than I could for the many other things where, having paid a 75 per cent. grant, the central Government or the Commission might be asked to authorise maintenance grants or some continuing grant over a long period of years.
I do not blame my hon. Friend for trying to write this into the Bill. I am sure that local authorities, the Park Planning Board and everybody else would like it. I have said why it breaches the general principle, although I have great sympathy with the point. I hope that the fact that we cannot have a special grant for maintenance beyond a certain period will in no way lessen the work which these local authorities are doing and, I hope, will do on an increasing scale. Although I realise that maintenance work costs money, it costs nothing like the huge sum the initial planting costs. I hope that this will not be too great a burden to leave with the authorities which are now doing the work.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause No. 14.

BUDGET OF THE COMMISSION.

(1) The Minister may, out of moneys provided by Parliament, pay to the Countryside Commission such sums in respect of the expenses of the Commission as he may with the consent of the Treasury determine, and so far as relates to the use and expenditure of sums so paid the Commission shall act in accordance with such directions as may from time to time be given to it by the Minister.

(2) The Commission shall keep proper accounts and other information with respect to its property and activities as the Minister may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine.

(3) The Commission shall prepare for each financial year statements of account in such form as the Minister, with the approval of the Treasury, may direct and submit those statements of account to the Minister at such time as he may direct. The Minister shall on or before the 30th November in any year transmit such statements of account to the Comptroller and Auditor General, who shall examine and certify them and lay copies of them together with his reports thereon before each House of Parliament.—[Mr. Channon.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Chanson: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): With this new Clause the House can discuss Amendment No. 3, in Clause 2, page 3, line 18, leave out:
'with the approval of the Minister';
Amendment No. 7, in Clause 4, page 5, line 21, leave out ' approved by the Minister'; and Amendment 8, in line 27, leave out from beginning to the ' in line 28.

Mr. Channon: Those Amendments are consequential on the new Clause. It is vital to get some picture of how the Commission will emerge, what its budget will be, how much independence and initiative will remain with it, and in how many cases it will have to seek the approval of the Ministry for its projects. It is vital that the Commission, which will be a very important body, should have powers and status comparable with its new duties. We have discussed the question whether it should have more executive functions. The Government, with the approval of many hon. Members, did not wish to give the Commission any more executive powers than those provided for in the Bill.
However, there is a case for dealing with the Commission's budget in the way suggested in the Clause. I hope that the Minister will either accept the Clause or give us an outline of how the Commission's budget will work. The Clause is an amalgam of two Sections, one in the Science and Technology Act, 1965, and the other in the Agriculture Act, 1967. It would ensure that the Commission would be given by the Minister certain moneys, as provided for in subsection (1), and the Minister would then give certain directions in accordance with which the Commission would act. The Commission would then have to bring forward a scheme which would have to be approved by both the Minister and the Treasury. Naturally, accounts would have to be kept, as provided by subsection (2), and there would be the usual financial control by the Comptroller and Auditor General. From time to time, no doubt, the Estimates Committee or, perhaps, the Public Accounts Committee, would keep an eye on the Countryside Commission.
9.15 p.m.
The Commission ought not to be so tightly controlled that it has no independent powers at all. I have put down the new Clause in the hope that we shall learn that it is to have a certain discretion in all these matters in relation to its direct expenditure. The Commission should not have to come to the Ministry every time to seek approval of small matters such as travelling expenses, minor questions of staff salaries, and so on. It will have to deal with a host of important problems in the future. It will have to deal with inquiries and research, it will have to deal with experimental projects, with grants and loans to nonpublic bodies, and it will have to provide a great many services for visitors. It is right that the Commission should do all those things within a scheme broadly approved by the Government but should not be required to come to the Government for specific approval of every small idea, although such approval might well be appropriate in major matters.
There ought not to be such strict Ministerial control as to thwart initiative. I have nothing against the Ministry of Housing, save that it is already overburdened with decisions. It has a vast number of planning decisions to deal


with. In Southend, for example, the Minister has just issued his decision on the development plan review. It has taken him more than three years to do it. It would be wise for the Commission not to have to come for detailed control of every scheme to the Ministry of Housing. I accept that it would be an exaggeration to say that it would always have to wait three years, but it is not such an exaggeration as all that. The Ministry of Housing has an enormous amount of detailed planning and other work to do already.
The Clause would enable the Government to accept that, perhaps, the Commission knew better than the Minister of Housing in many respects. It would be likely to have better priorities, and in many cases a requirement for strict control over all its activities might well lead to wasteful and inefficient duplication of effort. I feel rather strongly about this. The Commission will have a great task to do, and it must measure up to it. It will measure up to its task and will work far more satisfactorily if it is a quasi-independent Commission not at the beck and call of the Ministry on every tiny decision.
I hope that the argument of administrative convenience will not be put against this proposal. I accept that some recasting of the estimates may be required if some such proposal is accepted, and this could cause certain amount of inconvenience to Ministers. But it would be outweighed by an improvement in efficiency and an enhancement of the status of the Commission. The House is anxious to get the Commission off the ground and see it make a good start. To this end, the Commission should not be burdened by day-to-day interference in its work but should be, as I say, quasi-independent, entrusted to carry on its day-to-day activities, working within a broad scheme laid down and approved by the Government.
I hope that the House will accept the purpose which I have outlined, and will look upon either the new Clause or something very like it with favour. The consequential Amendments which I have put down would merely remove at the appropriate points the requirement to obtain the Minister's approval.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I welcome the intention behind the Clause, because it is desperately important that the new National Parks and Countryside Commission shall have real authority. One of the great weaknesses of the National Parks Commission has been that it has lacked that independence. It has had neither executive authority nor any real financial authority of its own, or so limited a financial authority as to be quite unreal.
I very much hope that the Clause will at least bring from my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State a statement, such as has been requested. We are very anxious that as wide and independent powers as possible shall be given to the new Commission. I am not sure that the Clause would be workable as it stands, but we want something nearer to independence than the Nature Conservancy has been able to achieve. We want quite a considerable independence in its action such as has enabled the Natural Environment Research Council to go ahead under a clear plan over a period of years, whereas the National Parks Commission has never been able to do that. It has never been master in its own house in any proper sense.
I hope that the new Commission will have a wider executive authority. A small amount has been given, which I welcome, but I should like it to be even greater. One thing we can try to achieve is to give it a limited amount of financial independence so that it will have at least some powers to deal with its budget in its own way, leaving it a sense of choice which otherwise it might not have. If my hon. and learned Friend can help us from that point of view, we shall be very grateful.

Mr. MacDermot: Since I moved from the Treasury to a spending Department, I have begun to experience the smarting under Treasury control which my colleagues used to complain about. No one likes having to be controlled in his expenditure, but I am afraid that it is one of the facts of life that if one is to keep a coherent system of government, one needs a fairly strong system of financial control, for otherwise things get out of hand.
Bodies set up by the Government may be grant-aided or they may be bodies


whose expenditure is carried on the Vote of their sponsoring Department. In the first category are bodies like the scientific research councils, such as the Medical Research Council, and in another field there is the Arts Council. They are bodies which are themselves bestowing munificence on others, which are making grants, and for which it is particularly desirable that there should be no question of Ministerial dictation as to the way in which the moneys should be distributed. That is the basic principle underlying those grant-aided bodies.
It would not be right to grant that degree of independence to the Countryside Commission, because it is so intimately bound up with the whole expenditure and the determination of priorities in expenditure, not only of Exchequer moneys but indirectly of local government moneys. I should say that the Commission's most important rôle in financial matters consists of its powers and duties in relation to Exchequer grants under Clause 29. In a sense we have put an unusual fetter on the Minister, because we have said that not only will he seek the Commission's advice as to which are the projects for which he should agree to give grant within a certain overall budget but that he shall not depart from that recommendation without consulting the Commission about his disagreement.
It is not merely that he has to give reasons, as it were, but he must discuss the matter further with the Commission. This is a recognition of what we intend to be the real influence which the Commission will have. We would regard it as an exceptional circumstance if, in matters of determining priorities of expenditure, the Minister should depart from the Commission's advice. I think that this is the big new factor and it makes a difference between the position of the present Commission and that of the new Commission.
As regards the Commission's own expenditure, we propose to follow the precedent of the National Parks Commission. It will be borne on the vote of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. This means that, like all branches of this Ministry and of others, when Estimates time comes, it will have to put up its own schemes and priorities for expenditure and that these will be presented through the Ministry to the

Treasury, and will have to be agreed with the Treasury. Certainly, under each head of expenditure that seems right, we will do all we can to argue for and assist the Commission to attain the priorities it thinks right. But ultimately, of course, as in all Estimates matters, the final say rests with the Treasury. One cannot take every matter of dispute to the Cabinet. So, as a constitutional matter, this will be the position.
Otherwise, of course, as regards keeping accounts and reporting, etc., the new Commission will be obliged under Section 4 of the 1949 Act to make its annual report to the Minister, who must lay it before Parliament. That does not include the financial statement but, of course, the accounts of the Commission will be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General and subject to the control of the Public Accounts Committee in the ordinary way. For these reasons and because the Commission will be primarily advisory, I would advise the House that it is right that we should continue the system of control which exists for the present Commission.

Mr. Channon: I find the hon. and learned Gentleman's answer a little disappointing because I think that the Commission will have too much day-to-day control imposed upon its activities. I hoped that it might be possible to devise a system to enable it to have a little more independence than that envisaged by the Government. However, I accept that a step forward has been announced in Clause 29, and at this stage I should like to study what the Minister of State has said. If necessary, my noble Friends in another place may wish to pursue the point, which is of interest to those concerned.
At this stage, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause No. 15.

PLOUGHING OF FOOTPATH OR BRIDLEWAY.

Where a footpath or bridleway crosses agricultural land or land which is being brought into use for agriculture, then, if—

(a) it is proposed in accordance with the rules of good husbandry to plough the land. and


(b) it is convenient, in so ploughing the land, to plough the path or way together with the rest of the land, 
the public right of way shall be subject to the condition that the occupier shall have the right to plough the path or way as well as the rest of the land.—[Mr. Ramsden.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ramsden: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this new Clause, we can discuss Amendment No. 64, in page 24, line 29, leave out Clause 23, and Amendment No. 92, in page 46, line 49, Schedule 4, at end insert:

7 &amp; 8 Eliz. 2. c. 25.
The Highways Act 1959.
Section 119.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Ramsden: We come now to the question of what the law will be and what will happen when a footpath is ploughed, a point which has produced some considerable amount of legal difficultly for quite a number of years. We discussed this at some length in Committee and I do not think that we have quite got it right yet. I move this Motion really to give the Government the opportunity to have another shot at the problem.
It ought to be possible to get a more sensible law than we have. Before making the argument, it might help to remind ourselves of the development of the law on ploughing footpaths over the last 20 years or so. As I understand it, before 1949 a farmer could plough a footpath only where he had a common law right to do so; there was no statutory right. He could plough only where a path was dedicated subject to his right to plough.
That was all right in those days when ploughing was with horses or fairly low-powered tractors and small implements—very different from the kind of tackle used today which, for its economic use, needs to be able to traverse fields in long, uninterrupted bouts. The 1949 Act, which was re-enacted verbatim in the Highways Act, 1959, which governed the law before this Measure, went some way towards recognising the developing needs of agriculture. While keeping a common law right, it added a statutory right, and allowed farmers to plough on condition that they gave notification of their intentions to the parish council and that they restored the surface after ploughing, as

soon as may be, to use the words of the Statute.
It is these words which have led to the difficulty. It was held by the Gosling Committee that the phrase "as soon as may be" was too vague and led to a state of the law which was unenforceable. This difficulty has been rather over-exaggerated, but it could be said to be there. There were other difficulties in that in a large number of cases no notification was given, and some paths disappeared as a result. Having considered the situation, the Gosling Committee made its recommendations, which are embodied in Clause 23, except for one important recommendation which we took out in Committee. It envisaged circumstances in which, for the benefit of the farmers, paths could be temporarily stopped up.
The Committee thought that this was not a reasonable impediment to put in the way of the walkers. I hope that the House will take the fact that we struck it out as an earnest that in moving this Amendment we are in no way taking the side of the farmer as against the rambler. We are trying to get a sensible, enforceable state of the law. At present the Clause is open to three fairly serious objections. In the first place, the administrative process, if one can call it that, under which the farmer has to apply for a diversion or extension of the period in which he has to restore is a cumbersome one and will lead to difficulty.
I took advice on this from my county council, and would like to quote the comments of the county clerk on the measures proposed. He says:
… the present law … has proved extremely difficult to enforce. As you are aware, there are a large number of paths over agricultural land in the county area, very few notices have been received under Section 119(2), and very few complaints have been brought to the County Surveyor's attention.
Under the proposed Clause … the County Council would still, in practice, have to rely largely on members of the public to bring breaches to their notice, and in my opinion this Clause, if enacted, would be likely to be honoured far more in the breach than in the observance.
If indeed it were to be observed generally, it would lead to considerable administrative work. A farmer would have to make application within the five or six weeks' period which would require processing and notices affixing at the ends of the path before the period expired. To comply with both Acts the County Council would have to consider ' rules of good husbandry'…' the interests of good


farming'…'the interests of the users of the paths'"—
in each case he gives the statutory reference—
and, if minded to refuse the application, the views of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Frankly, having regard to the number of paths and the time scale, I would not regard this as practicable.
I do not know, and the county administrative authorities do know, but to put it at its lowest, I should think that the procedure of having to apply for the necessary concession on the part of the farmer and reapply if the weather is wrong is something which we should avoid if we can.
The second difficulty about the Clause—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be talking about Clause 23. He must talk about his own Clause at some time.

Mr. Ramsden: My argument on my own Clause will be extremely brief. I am trying to put it in a negative way by saying that my Clause is necessary because the Government's Clause will not work. My Clause simply asserts, with the consequential Amendments, that a better solution is to have a right to plough with no statutory obligations to restore. My argument against the Government Clause is necessary to make the case for my Clause.
At the moment, there is a maximum of three months within which restoration must take place. This will not work. If ploughing is done in the autumn, however much the farmer may want to complete his cultivation and get the surface of the land back, the weather, at any rate in the North of England, is almost certain to be against him. Certainly, when ploughing had to be done in October or November on many farms, it was not possible to get on the land until the middle of March and, in some cases, not until early April. One cannot help this. It is no use making provision for these things if one is to be betrayed by the weather.
The third point has a bearing on my Clause, because I propose no method of restoration other than the foot of the rambler as he walks up and down the path. Nobody has yet been able to explain to me satisfactorily how one restores

the surface of a footpath other than by the agricultural operation of harrowing, sowing and rolling or by walking up and down it, or by a combination of both. I know of no implement which can be used to restore a footpath and which one can guarantee to get on the land to do the job in all weathers.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not discussing whether Clause 23 should stand part of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman must come to his own Clause.

Mr. Ramsden: Having said what is not sensible and will not work, I propose to say what I think would be sensible and in the interests of the farmer and walker.
As a result of a previous Clause in the Bill, there will be signposts on these paths. There will be more signposts so that people will know to where the paths go. There will not be stopping up, so that people can be assured of going for their walks in the countryside without impediment. It would be sensible to let the farming operations take their course and to let people go on their walks as they wish and consider what the results on footpaths and restoration will be.
The farmer will do his ploughing some time during the winter. The man going for a walk over arable land in the winter will admittedly have to walk across the ploughed field, but that is not a great hardship in the months when country walking is not at its most popular and certainly when older people who might be inconvenienced do not ordinarily do much walking in the countryside. When the farmer gets on the land in the spring the harrowing, sowing and rolling will be done, the surface will be consolidated, and the path will be there again. It will be signposted and all that the walker will have to do will be to go from one signpost to another. Admittedly he will have to go through the crop, but the farmer will have nothing to complain about in that regard because the path was to be there anyway. The combination of the field being rolled and people walking up and down the line of the path will contribute, as nothing else can, to the restoration of the surface of the path. This would be a sensible and practical solution which would meet the farmers' and the walkers' point without any administrative rigmarole of statutory obligations.


I hope that the Government will look at this sympathetically.
Admittedly this can apply only to country paths. In the case of footpaths in the neighbourhood of towns with tarmac surfaces—and there are such—obviously one does not want to give anyone the right to plough them, and no one would want to plough them. That is the exceptional situation and could, I suggest, be controlled by byelaw. It is not necessary to have a general power such as is proposed in the Clause to operate all over the country. I hope that the Government will look into this. If what I have suggested in its present form does not meet the point, I have no doubt that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary can think of something which will. But do not let us make a law which will not be enforceable and which will repeat the difficulties of the 1959 situation.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I have some sympathy with the point of view of the right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden), but I think that his proposal is unworkable. I hope that my hon. Friend will resist it. The real point is that a clearly defined footpath is as much in the interest of the farmer as of the walker. We know the dangers that the farmer has to face because of people going away from the path on cultivated land and the damage which can be caused. We appreciate that, but the only way to safeguard the farmer against this is to have a clearly defined path. To suggest that the walker should make his own track, as it were, across a ploughed field and also possibly through growing crops is an impossible proposition if we are to help the farmer.
One safeguard for the farmer is that people who go walking should try to avoid ploughed fields and keep away from growing crops. We try, by education and so on, to encourage people to keep to the edge of a field. I have been doing this for years. If people think that it is perfectly all right to wander across a field of growing crops, that must cause infinite damage to the farmer. There will be arguments as to whether a person is following the precise route of the original path or whether he is not. One can imagine the kind of furore there might be and the complaints that would come from farmers if this practice were followed.
I quite appreciate the difficulties, but it is better that, where it is proved to be necessary, an alternative route should clearly be established for people to follow without causing damage by walking across the centre of the field. This is no major hardship.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Ramsden: If it lasts for three months, then at some point people have to walk through the crop. So long as we have footpaths this is something that has to be accepted.

Mr. Blenkinsop: There are provisions for permanent diversions in certain cases. I do not object to that in proper circumstances. I have never felt particularly badly done by if I have to follow a crooked route in order to avoid damage to the farmer. I have had some experience of wandering about in the countryside as a walker, and I have been on reasonably good terms, I am glad to say, with farmers. I suggest that the proposal of the right hon. Member for Harrogate is not practicable. While I should like to help him to find an easier way, I suggest the compromise we have reached in this Bill is workable and satisfactory. After all, farmers have in years past given a great number of undertakings to maintain footpaths, and they have not done so. They must accept a certain amount of blame for this. All over the country footpaths have been going out of existence and, unfortunately, hardly ever is any attempt made by the farmer to make reasonable provision. I consider that the more detailed provision we have put into the Bill is necessary. I am sorry that it should be necessary, but there it is.

Mr. Kimball: The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) must do all his rambling in the livestock rearing parts of the country. I have spent a great deal of my time trying to avoid ploughed fields. In Lincolnshire, Norfolk and other counties in the east of England it is quite impossible to avoid ploughed fields. About one-eighth of the area of most parishes in Lincoln and Norfolk is not ploughed. The suggestions of the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields, are not practicable. They may apply in the North Riding of Yorkshire, they may apply in Durham, they certainly apply in Northumberland, but they do


not apply in other counties. The Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) is, in my opinion, a sensible, practical compromise.
The right hon. Gentleman described it in Committee as a method of treading out footpaths. This does not involve anybody in any great expense. If the farmer ploughs up the footpath and the local community of the local rambling club wish to use the footpath, all they have to do is to tread it out again. They are not liable for any damage. They stick to the existing route; they are not faced with diversion. They do not have to discover whether they can go that way or not. They can follow the line of the map and follow the signposts. All they have to do if the footpath has been ploughed up is to walk along it, and once they have walked along it the footpath is re-established. Farmers have not done all the necessary diversions which have been suggested in the past because, in practice, they have been proved to be unenforceable. On the other hand, there have been very few objections about footpaths being ploughed up, and farmers have not found it necessary to obtain permission before carrying out normal agricultural operations.
In the Clause we have a sensible, practicable proposition whereby footpaths which people want maintained will be maintained at the least expense to the farming community. We shall not suffer from the professional footpath maintainer who now exists in many areas. Even some rural district councils now employ such people as retired army majors who can read maps to ensure that footpaths are kept open. My view is that they should continue to employ them. Let them tread out the paths. With this Clause, this sort of individual will not be a great worry to the farming community or to anyone else. I hope that the Clause will be accepted as the most practical way of dealing with the problem.

Mr. John Smith: The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) said that we must "safeguard" the farmer and "help" the farmer. However, that is rather like the Government's attitude to the Falkland Islands. We hear a great deal about the interests of the islanders, without hearing what it is that they themselves want. Surely if we mean to

help farmers, we should find out what they want. They do want this new Clause, and they do not want Clause 23. The new Clause unlike Clause 23 does not oblige the farmer to give notice of his intention to plough a footpath, nor does it oblige him to reinstate the path after ploughing.
We must not legislate as if farmers were ill-intentioned people. There were hints of that towards the end of the hon. Gentleman's speech. Clause 23 is a long one, and it is typical—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, Clause 23 is in the Bill. We are discussing a Clause which is not in the Bill.

Mr. Smith: I was seeking to contrast it briefly but unfavourably with my hon. Friend's proposed Clause. The Clause in the Bill is typical of the urban attitude throughout the Bill, whereas my hon. Friend's Clause escapes that charge. Throughout the Bill, there is a fear on the part of the townsman that when he gets into the country the natives will prove hostile. There is also the bias which the townsman is apt to feel against the farmer—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Not only are we not discussing Clause 23; we are not discussing the Bill. We are discussing new Clause No. 15.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, if I do get out of order, it will only be for a moment or so, from time to time.
My hon. Friend's Clause gets away from the bias which there is against the farmer. For example, tinder existing legislation, a farmer can be fined £50 in certain circumstances for ploughing a footpath, but a man whose dog attacks sheep or cattle on a footpath is fined only £20. There is this bias from which—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is getting even worse. We must come to the Clause.

Mr. Smith: —my hon. Friend's Clause helps us to get away. Farmers will not plough footpaths just to annoy the rambler. They will plough them only if it makes for better farming, and better farming is not merely a selfish matter of the farmer earning a better living, but part of the national business of saving imports.
That leads me on to a general consideration in favour of the new Clause. Governments are much too apt to ignore the effect of legislation on the economy. They have some regard to the taxpayer, it is true, but they ignore that part of the cost of legislation which falls on the economy; although in many cases costs which fall on the economy are much more damaging to the country than costs which fall on the taxpayer. For example, the Selective Employment Tax is always said to be—[Interruption.]—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing whether a farmer may plough a bridlepath under certain conditions.

Mr. Smith: I am sorry; it is most unfortunate to my argument, Mr. Speaker, that it should be yourself in the Chair at this moment. My right hon. Friend's proposal does get away from the fallacy to which all Governments are prone, which is to believe that if expenses do not fall on the taxpayer then they do not cost anything at all. My point is that much desirable legislation costs the economy a great deal, but that in our present situation we cannot afford every luxury we desire. The question of ploughing and reinstating footpaths is a case in point. Either a farmer does not plough a footpath, or he ploughs it and reinstates it; both alternatives increase the cost of farming. How does the farmer reinstate it? What machine does he use? Moreover, the cost to the economy is quite incommensurate with the advantage to the walker—the rambler—who can perfectly well tread out the path for himself. We all know the farming phrase: "The best manure is the boss's footsteps". The best method of reinstatement for a footpath, in my opinion, is the rambler's boot. Clause 23 of the Bill is unnecessary and damaging to the economy and the new Clause now proposed is greatly preferable to it.

Mr. Skeffington: I am not quite certain whether I understand the hon. Gentleman's view of new Clause 15 as well as I did before listening to the last speech, because in trying to find which part of the new Clause the hon. Gentleman was speaking to one got lost; and one even got lost between those parts of the speech which appeared more relevant than

others. I want to make seriously to the hon. Gentleman a point on which he should bear me out since he was a member of the Standing Committee. He said that the Bill is characterised all the way through by an urban approach. This is not true at all. We have tried again and again—and credit should be paid to the Government for this—to keep a balance all the way through between the needs of those who live and work in the country and those of the vast numbers of people who go, and will continue to go, on a large scale to the country. I would have thought that in many respects we have been extremely successful in that.
Our approach in this particular Clause and the Amendment we are discussing has been wider than the specific recommendations which came from the Gosling Committee on which were representatives of all the interests involved. There were country interests and particular group interests, who heard the views of a large body of people representing farmers, landowners, and others. It is necessary to put this into the picture before we begin to discuss what we are attempting to do, having got these recommendations from this very conscientious and hard working Committee.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Countryside Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Gourlay.]

Question again proposed, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Skeffington: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's motives in moving this new Clause, although it is unacceptable. His actions and his observations in Committee were very helpful and we were often grateful to him. He gave tonight a pocket history of footpath legislation which was accurate in that compass, and which highlighted the important point, in considering the balance which the Bill has so far achieved, that, until the 1949 Act, the occupier had no right to plough a right of way. That great Act took away the right of the individual, which had been enjoyed and fought for for centuries, to walk paths designated as common thoroughfares. Section 56 limited their right: before, it had been possible


to plough only under a common law right arising because the path had been dedicated to the public authorities, who were charged with responsibility for it—

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: Surely, in most cases where a footpath goes diagonally across an arable field, a farmer has always had a right to plough it, simply because the original dedication would have been subject to ordinary operations of husbandry. I do not see how the hon. Gentleman can say that that right was created by the 1949 Act.

Mr. Skeffington: Except where a common law right to plough was established, an owner or occupier had no right to plough a right of way. Because of certain concessions arising from the war, this provision was made in the 1949 Act; the premises were re-enacted in Section 119 of the 1959 Highways Act, bat have not proved very effective. A good deal of ploughing which takes place is not really legal. Evidence has been given by the amenity societies and many other bodies, including local authorities, that ploughing leads to a tendency for the paths to be lost.
Walkers do not like the occupation of treading out paths. The more valiant of them do it, but it is a difficult operation. We know from the evidence given to the Gosling Committee that we are considering a problem which may, in the main, affect paths near towns. Many paths are disappearing each year. Because of the unsatisfactory nature of Section 119 of the Highways Act and the recommendations in paragraphs 62–65 of the Gosling Report, we drafted new Clause 23.
I concede that there will be difficulties in administering the provision. I must be honest and say that it is not an ideal solution. However, we feel that there are considerable advantages to be gained by having new Clause 23, which the Opposition new Clause would delete. It is important that there should be well-signposted paths, that where ploughing tales place notice should be given so that the authority is alerted and that, if restoration does not take place in accordance with the provisions of the

Bill, it can be done by the local authority and not left to the walker. As I said in Committee, the walker's boots may be the best way of treading out a path, but there are other ways, such as the use of small motorised rollers.
It is in the interests of the farmer to have well maintained paths which are known, sign-posted and restored. This will prevent a great deal of the trespassing that goes on, much of it done innocently. As a result of the Bill, the walker will know that, although he may occasionally be diverted, he has a right of way and, therefore, every right to be there. This is the most practical way to solve this problem.
If the Opposition new Clause were accepted all this would go and, with Amendment No. 64, there would be none of the provisions in new Clause 23. Further, Section 119 of the Highways Act would not apply. We would be left with merely the right of the more intrepid walker to walk through a footpath, if he could find it, and thereby maintain it. In view of the history of this matter, we consider that the Opposition new Clause is not the answer, remembering that if it were accepted there would be nothing to prevent paths around fields from being covered. For all these reasons I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will not press the Clause.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: This has been an interesting debate and, in his usual style, the Parliamentary Secretary was reasonable in his reply. I regret that I cannot agree with his arguments. The hon. Gentleman admitted that the Bill did not provide an ideal solution. Indeed, he went so far as to say that boots were best.
The Clause, moved so eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden), would do away with a great deal of the cumbersome administrative paraphernalia which will be a nuisance not only to local authorities but to farmers. All the difficulties about diversion and the problem of the three months affecting agriculture would be solved. The Minister said that paths were being lost, but footpaths are still on the map and the inveterate and sensible walker who finds himself in a strange area


knows how to read the Ordnance Survey or definitive map. Provided he gets one which is up to date and as has been published since we had a rehash of the footpaths a few years ago, he will be perfectly able to see where these footpaths are. If the Clause is accepted, even if the ploughed field perhaps under crop has not reverted to holding the footpath in the field, it will still be open to the walker rightly to tread out that particular footpath.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: Has the hon. Gentleman ever attempted to follow a non-existent footpath using an ordnance map? If it is a 6 in. map, or even a 2½ in. map, I take the point he made, but with a 1 in. map the footpath is not definite and cannot be followed.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: After the Bill is passed, county councils, at considerable expense, will put up footpath notices, and where they leave the road it will be absolutely clear to anyone where the footpaths will be. I say to the hon. Member for South Shields: get a good stout pair of boots and tread out these pathways. That is what most people do. Wherever the powers are required they will still be there.

I do not accept what the Parliamentary Secretary or the hon. Member for South Shields said about losing footpaths. The Parliamentary Secretary used the argument that the Gosling Committee was in favour of the proposal in the Bill. Gosling has been in favour of a number of things which this House in its wisdom has not agreed to. It was in favour of a certain Clause about bulls. That has disappeared from the Bill. It was also in favour of stopping up and we have done away with that. Although we are in favour of much of the Gosling Committee's Report, we should not necessarily slavishly follow it.

The arguments for this Clause put forward forcibly by my hon. Friends should be followed. It was apparent during the closing remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary that he would not follow us, but I hope that even at this late hour he will say that on consideration he will accept the Clause with all its simplification and benefit both to the walker and to the farmer. If he cannot do that, we shall divide the House.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 199.

New Clause 20.

FORESTRY ACT (AMENDMENT).

The power of the Minister to acquire by compulsory purchase land which in his opinion is suitable for afforestation or for purposes connected with forestry shall not be exercised in relation to the purposes of section 18 of this Act.—[Mr. Gibson-Watt.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): With this new Clause we can discuss Amendment No. 95, in page 46, line 54, Schedule 4, at end add:

15 &amp; 16 Eliz. 2.c.10.
Forestry Act 1967.
In section 40(2) at end insert (e) land acquired under section 18 of this Act.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Time is getting on and I shall be brief. We are proposing that the power of the Minister to give compulsory purchase power to the Forestry Commission to buy land for certain recreational purposes should be done away with. The Commission, under Section 9 of the Forestry Act, 1967, already has an eventual power of compulsory purchase with regard to afforestation, and afforestation is what the Commission was put there for by the House in the first place.
10.45 p.m.
My right hon. and hon. Friends and I do not exclude the fact that within the bounds of the Forestry Commission land, under certain circumstances, it is a sensible idea, for the provision of public enjoyment and recreation, to provide such things as have been noted in Clause 18. We cavil at the fact that Clause 18 gives the Minister compulsory powers to allow the Commission to provide accommodation for visitors, camping and caravan sites, places for meals and refreshments, picnic places, viewpoint stances, parking places, routes for nature study and footpaths, information and display centres, shops in connection with these facilities, and public conveniences.
Within the existing land that the Commission has, it is possible that these recreational and occupational provisions should be met. But it is wrong that the Minister should be given the power to give the Commission the power to look over its borders, rather on the lines of Naboth's vineyard, and say that it wants that piece of land in order to provide a hotel or a "loo". This is not right, and it is for this reason, without wasting further time, that I move this new Clause.

Mr. MacDermot: I must begin by advising the hon. Gentleman and the House that the new Clause would not achieve the hon. Gentleman's purpose. It would have no effect, for it refers to the power of the Minister to acquire by compulsory purchase, land, and so on. The Minister

in the Bill is the Minister of Housing, except, in some cases, it is the Secretary of State for Wales. The Ministers concerned with the powers of compulsory purchase for the Forestry Commissioners are the forestry Ministers, the Agriculture Ministers. I point that out, not only to advise the House, as is my duty, of what would be the effect of that Clause, but also because it may be some reassurance, in view of the tone in which the Clause was moved, to know that the confirmation power is with the Minister of Agriculture. I hope that will assure the hon. Gentleman that before any such compulsory purchase order was confirmed, the interests of agriculture would be fully taken into account.
As I understand it, the forestry Ministers except to use the powers of acquisition under Clause 18 sparingly in any event. I am not talking just about their powers of compulsory acquisition, but their powers of acquisition in general. It would be an unusual circumstance, in our view, for it to be necessary to acquire any other land in order to facilitate the use of Forestry Commission land for amenity purposes.
We think it necessary to provide for the rare contingency that may arise, where for example, an access route near, but not on, its land was essential for purposes of a camping site, which was on its land. That being so, we regard the possibility of compulsory powers being used for these purposes as being even more remote. Nevertheless, we think it right to retain the right and power to acquire land compulsorily for that purpose, even though we think that it would be a most unusual eventuality for them to have to use their power. To deprive the Forestry Commission of these powers and withdraw them would be inconsistent with the other powers existing in the Bill to acquire land for amenity purposes. It would also incidentally produce the curious anomaly, in view of the provisions already contained in the Countryside (Scotland) Act, of giving one forestry Minister stronger powers than other forestry Ministers.
I would also remind the house of the provisions of Section 40 of the Forestry Act, 1967, because it is under that Section that any powers of acquisition would be used for this purpose. There are certain


classes of land that cannot be compulsorily acquired under these powers; they include land which is the site of an ancient monument or other object of archaeological interest; land which forms part of a park, garden or pleasure ground or which forms part of the home farm attached to, and usually occupied with, a mansion house or is otherwise required for the amenity or convenience of a dwelling house; land which is the property of a local authority; land which has been acquired for the purpose of their undertaking by statutory undertakers; and land subject to a forestry dedication covenant or agreement which is being used and managed in accordance with a plan of operations approved by the Commissioners. So there are a number of restrictions on the powers of acquisition. To get the matter in true perspective, the real picture is that it is a last resort power and would be used only when the Forestry Ministers were satisfied that it was essential to enable the Forestry Commissioners to carry out their amenity responsibilities which they are acquiring under Clause 18.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: The hon. and learned Gentleman felicitously replied to my short speech with an equally short speech, but I do not agree with a word that he has said.
He referred to the fact that there would be rare contingencies, but that this would be a most unusual eventuality. He then went on to give the various exceptions where the Forestry Commission would rot and cannot, under the existing law, tike these compulsory powers. One of the exceptions was land which had already been dedicated by individuals to the growing of trees. With respect, if individuals have dedicated their land to the production of trees it would be taken for granted by any Minister of the Crown that no Forestry Commission would be able to come along and take it. This was a poor type of example to produce tonight.
The hon. and learned Gentleman did not answer my argument on this. My argument, which I will not repeat at great length, was that the Forestry Commission already has powers of the sort we are describing to get land for trees.

But why should it be necessary for the Forestry Commission to have these powers for the provision of land for recreational purposes? My point was that the Forestry Commission, on the land that it already has, should be able to provide these types of recreation and it should be unnecessary for the Government to go in for further compulsory powers in this way.
We are in danger today in this and in other ways of blinding our people with the number of compulsory powers that the central Government are taking. I believe that some of the results which we are seeing, and the way in which certain parts of the country are reacting, have a definite connection with the compulsory purchase and overriding powers which in certain ways the central government are taking.
The hon. and learned Gentleman also mentioned the Ministers. I would point out that the Secretary of State for Wales acts as the Minister of Housing and is also in charge of forestry. In Wale:, we are dealing not with two Ministers, but one.
The hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered my argument. He has not proved to the House why it is necessary for the Forestry Commission to have these compulsory powers. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will show their support by voting for the Amendment, unless the hon. and learned Gentleman says something rather more encouraging.

Dr. Bennett: I am always deeply suspicious when a Minister says, "These are powers which we do not expect to have to use", or "They are only marginal powers, and it would he extraordinary if we had to use them." The Minister's sweet words are never recorded on any document in the possession of a solicitor who has to fight an incursion by the Government on the lines adumbrated by a provision such as that which the new Clause seeks to moderate. Therefore, we should reject any idea of giving these powers which are to be used so sparingly. The whole idea is misconceived, and certainly I oppose it.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 130. Noes 189.

Division No. 117.]
AYES
[10.14 p.m.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Doughty, Charles
Kitson, Timothy


Astor, John
Drayson, G. B.
Lane, David


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Eden, Sir John
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Errington, Sir Eric
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. &amp; Fhm)
Eyre, Reginald
Loveys, W. H.


Biffen, John
Fisher, Nigel
Lubbock, Eric


Biggs-Davison, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
MacArthur, Ian


Black, Sir Cyril
Fortescue, Tim
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)


Blaker, Peter
Gibson-Watt, David
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Boardman, Tom
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maddan, Martin


Body, Richard
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mawby, Ray


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Goodhew, Victor
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Gower, Raymond
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Brewis, John
Grant, Anthony
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Gresham Cooke, R.
Miscampbell, Norman


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
Grieve, Percy
Monro, Hector


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gurden, Harold
More, Jasper


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Buck, Anthony (Colchester)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hawkins, Paul
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Carlisle, Mark
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Channon, H. P. G.
Hiley, Joseph
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hill, J. E. B.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Clark, Henry
Holland, Philip
Pardoe, John


Clegg, Walter
Hornby, Richard
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Cooke, Robert
Hunt, John
Peel, John


Costain, A. P.
Iremonger, T. L.
Percival, Ian


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pink, R. Bonner


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pounder, Rafton


Dance, James
Jennings, J. c. (Burton)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Jopling, Michael
Prior, J. M. L.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Kimball, Marcus
Pym, Francis


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Quennell, Miss J. M.




Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Stainton, Keith
Vickers, Dame Joan


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Ward, Dame Irene


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Stoddart-Scott, Col, Sir M. (Ripon)
Webster, David


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Royle, Anthony
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Scott, Nicholas
Teeling, Sir William
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Sharples, Richard
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Worsley, Marcus


Silvester, Frederick
Tilney, John
Wright, Esmond


Smith Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.



Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)
van Straubenzee, W. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Speed, Keith
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Mr. R. W. Elliott and 




Mr. Humphrey Atkins.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Norwood, Christopher


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Oakes, Gordon


Alldritt, Walter
Hamling, William
O'Malley, Brian


Anderson, Donald
Hannan, William
Orbach, Maurice


Archer, Peter
Harper, Joseph
Orme, Stanley


Armstrong, Ernest
Harrison., Walter (Wakefield)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Haseldine, Norman
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Hazell, Bert
Padley, Walter


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Beaney, Alan
Hilton, W. S.
Palmer, Arthur


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hooley, Frank
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Binns, John
Horner, John
Pentland, Norman


Bishop, E. S.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Blackburn, F.
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Probert, Arthur


Boston, Terence
Howie, W.
Richard, Ivor


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hoy, James
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Brooks, Edwin
Huckfield, Leslie
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Rose, Paul


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Cant, R. B.
Hynd, John
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Carmichael, Neil
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St.P 'cras, S.)
Short, Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Coe, Denis
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Coleman, Donald
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Conlan, Bernard
Kelley, Richard
Skeffington, Arthur


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Small, William


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lawson, George
Spriggs, Leslie


Culien, Mrs. Alice
Leadbitter, Ted
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Dalyell, Tam
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Lee, John (Reading)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Swain, Thomas


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lomas, Kenneth
Swingler, Stephen


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Loughlin, Charles
Symonds, J. B.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Luard, Evan
Taverne, Dick


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Thornton, Ernest


Dell, Edmund
McBride, Neil
Tinn, James


Dempsey, James
McCann, John
Urwin, T. W.


Dewar, Donald
MacDermot, Niall
Varley, Eric G.


Doig, Peter
Macdonald, A. H.
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Dunn, James A.
McGuire, Michael
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Dunnett, Jack
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Ruttherglen)
Wallace, George


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Mackie, John
Watkins, David (Consett)


Eadie, Alex
Maclennan, Robert
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Weitzman, David


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wellbeloved, James


Ellis, John
MacPherson, Malcolm
White, Mrs. Eirene


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Whitlock, William


Faulds, Andrew
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Wilkins, W. A.


Fernyhough, E.
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mapp, Charles
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Marks, Kenneth
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marquand, David
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Foley, Maurice
Maxwell, Robert
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mendelson, J. J.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Ford, Ben
Mikardo, Ian
Winnick, David


Forrester, John
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Fowler, Gerry
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Yates, Victor


Garrett, W. E.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)



Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Moyle, Roland
Mr. Harry Gourlay and


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Murray, Albert
Mr. Charles Morris.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn.Philip (Derby, S.)

Division No. 118.]
AYES
[10.55 p.m.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Goodhew, Victor
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Astor, John
Gower, Raymond
Pardoe, John


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Grant, Anthony
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Peel, John


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Grieve, Percy
Percival, Ian


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Pink, R, Bonner


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Gurden, Harold
Pounder, Rafton


Biffen, John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Biggs-Davison, John
Hastings, Stephen
Prior, J. M. L.


Black, Sir Cyril
Hawkins, Paul
Pym, Francis


Blaker, Peter
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Boardman, Tom
Hiley, Joseph
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Body, Richard
Hill, J. E. B.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Holland, Philip
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hornby, Richard
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Brewis, John
Hunt, John
Royle, Anthony


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Iremonger, T. L.
Scott, Nicholas


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Sharples, Richard


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Silvester, Frederick


Buck, Anthony (Colchester)
Jopling, Michael
Smith, Dudley (Warwick&amp;Leamington)


Carlisle, Mark
Kimball, Marcus
Speed, Keith


Channon, H. P. G.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kitson, Timothy
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Clark, Henry
Lane, David
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Clegg, Walter
Langford-Holt Sir John
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Cooke, Robert
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Teeling, Sir William


Crouch, David
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Loveys, W. H.
Tilney, John


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lubbock, Eric
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Dance, James
MacArthur, Ian
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt, Hn. Sir John


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Vickers, Dame Joan


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Maddan, Martin
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Doughty, Charles
Mawby, Ray
Ward, Dame Irene


Drayson, G. B.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Webster, David


Eden, Sir John
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Emery, Peter
Miscampbell, Norman
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Eyre, Reginald
More, Jasper
Worsley, Marcus


Fisher, Nigel
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Wright, Esmond


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)



Fortescue, Tim
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gibson-Watt, David
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Mr. Hector Monro.


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Page, Graham (Crosby)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Dempsey, James
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dewar, Donald
Hooley, Frank


Alldritt, Walter
Dickens, James
Horner, John


Anderson, Donald
Doig, Peter
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Archer, Peter
Dunn, James A.
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Dunnett, Jack
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Howie, W.


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Hoy, James


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Eadie, Alex
Huckfield, Leslie


Beaney, Alan
Ellis, John
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Bidwell, Sydney
Faulds, Andrew
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Binns, John
Fernyhough, E.
Hynd, John


Bishop, E. S.
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)


Blackburn, F.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jeger, Mrs.Lena (H'b'n&amp;st.P'cras, S.)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Foley, Maurice
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Boston, Terence
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Brooks, Edwin
Ford, Ben
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Forrester, John
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Brown Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Fowler, Gerry
Kelley, Richard


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)


Cant, R. B.
Garrett, W. E.
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Carmichael, Neil
Gourlay, Harry
Lawson, George


Coe, Denis
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Leadbitter, Ted


Coleman, Donald
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Concannon, J. D.
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Lee, John (Reading)


Conlan, Bernard
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Dalyell, Tam
Hamling, William
Lomas, Kenneth


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hannan, William
Loughlin, Charles


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Harper, Joseph
Luard, Evan


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Haseldine, Norman
McBride, Neil


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hazell, Bert
MacDermot, Niall


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Macdonald, A. H.


Dell, Edmund
Hilton, W. S.
McGuire, Michael




McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Padley, Walter
Thornton, Ernest


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Tinn, James


Maclennan, Robert
Palmer, Arthur
Urwin, T. W.


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Varley, Eric G.


McNamara, J. Kevin
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


MacPherson, Malcolm
Pavitt, Laurence
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Pentland, Norman
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Price, William (Rugby)
Wallace, George


Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Probert, Arthur
Watkins, David (Consett)


Mapp, Charles
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Marks, Kenneth
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Weitzman, David


Marquand, David
Rose, Paul
Wellbeloved, James


Maxwell, Robert
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Mendelson, J. J.
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Whitlock, William


Mikardo, Ian
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Sherrington, Arthur
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Moyle, Roland
Small, William
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Murray Albert
Spriggs, Leslie
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn.Philip (Derby, S.)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Winnick, David


Norwood, Christopher
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Oakes, Gordon
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Woof, Robert


O'Malley, Brian
Swain, Thomas
Yates, Victor


Orbach, Maurice
Swingler, Stephen



Orme, Stanley
Symonds, J. B.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Taverne, Dick
Mr. Alan Fitch and Mr. John McCann.

New Clause No. 16.

REGULATIONS FOR THE CONTROL OF VESSELS.

(1) A local planning authority whose area consists of, or includes the whole or any part of a National Park, may make regulations for the control of vessels on any waterway in the National Park where, as respects such waterway, it appears to the authority that it is expedient so to do—

(a) for avoiding danger to persons or vessels using the waterway;
(b) for facilitating the passage of vessels on the waterway;
(c) for preventing or limiting the use of the waterway by vessels of a description which, or used for a purpose which, is unsuitable having regard to the existing character of the waterway and its surrounding area;
(d) for the purpose of conserving or enhancing the natural beauty of the waterway and its surrounding area;
(e) for the purpose of affording better opportunities for the public to enjoy the waterway or the surrounding area for recreation or the study of nature;
(f) for the purpose of preventing interference with the quiet enjoyment of the waterway or the surrounding area by the public.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions of this section, regulations made under this section may—

(a) prohibit, restrict or regulate the use of a waterway, either generally or in any manner specified in the regulations, by vessels of any description so specified or used for any purpose so specified;
(b) be made so as to relate either to the whole or to any part of the waterway, and may make different provisions for different parts thereof;
(c) prohibit the use of the waterway by vessels of any description specified in the regulation, or used for any purpose so specified, which are not for the time being registered with the authority in such manner as the regulations may provide;
(d) authorise the making of reasonable charges in respect of the registration of vessels in pursuance of the regulations.

(3) Regulations made under this section shall not provide for any prohibition, restriction or regulations, and if he thinks fit may cause a sistent with any rules for the time being in force in relation to that waterway by virtue of any provision of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894, and shall not interfere with any authority having under any enactment functions relating to that waterway.

(4) Regulations made under this section shall not have effect unless confirmed by the Minister.

(5) The Minister, if he confirms any such regulations, may confirm them either without modification, or subject to such modifications

as he thinks fit, but he shall not confirm any regulations until at least one month has elapsed since the making of the regulations and, before confirming them, shall consider any objections which may have been made to him against the regulations, and if he thinks fit may cause a public inquiry to be held.

(6) Any such regulations as aforesaid may be revoked, varied or amended by the authority subject to the like confirmation given subject to the like provisions as the first-mentioned regulations, or may be revoked, varied or amended by order made by the Minister after giving notice to the authority and holding, if he thinks fit, a public inquiry.

(7) Before an authority makes regulations under this section the authority shall consult the Commission.

(8) Regulations made under this section shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the Minister, or as the Minister may, in any particular case, direct.

(9) The Minister may make regulations for prescribing the procedure to be followed in connection with the making by authorities of regulations under this section, the confirmation of regulations so made, and the holding of inquiries.

(10) Any person who contravenes a regulation made under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, in the case of a first offence under this section to a fine not exceeding £20, and in the case of a second or subsequent offence, thereunder, to a fine not exceeding £50.

(11) A local planning authority having power under this section to make regulations shall have power to enforce regulations made by them.

(12) In this section 'vessel' includes any ship, boat, lighter and craft of every kind, however navigated, propelled or moved, and any seaplane, flying boat, hydroplane, hovercraft and any other aircraft or cushioncraft designed to manoeuvre on or immediately over the water.—[Mr. Jopling.]

Brought and, and read the First time.

Mr. Jopling: I beg to move, That the Clause he read a Second time.
This is exactly the same as a Clause which was debated in Committee. On that occasion the workings of the Committee and of an all-party approach to a problem showed themselves at their best. The Government were unwilling to meet the principle embodied in that new Clause and were overwhelmed by the sensible feelings of back benchers on both sides. If that Clause had not been withdrawn, I think that the Government would have been beaten on a Division. We were given certain assurances on the question of the control of vessels on waterways in National Parks which led us to believe that it would be reasonable to withdraw that Clause, on the assurance that the


Government would table a Clause either on Report or in another place. I am disappointed that the promised Clause has not appeared on the Notice Paper. However, I quite understand that the question raises important matters, and due consideration and consultation with the interested authorities must take place before it is brought in.
The background to the new Clause is the great boom in boating and water sport in this country. Many of our lakes, particularly in the Lake District, have become overcrowded with boats and water sport activities of one sort and another. This is becoming a serious matter in the Lake District because of the boats which are permanently kept in the area—the larger yachts and houseboats—and it is exacerbated by the boats which are brought on the tops of cars or on trailers for the weekend and launched at same of the public and private landing places around the lakes. The situation will become infinitely worse as the M6 motorway comes nearer to the Lakes themselves.
The greatest problem arises in the Lake District, and various difficulties must be faced. First, there is the problem of noise. Many people go to the Lakes for peace and quiet. Noisy forms of water sport have not yet intruded on to some of our lakes, and I hope—I am sure that this hope is shared on both sides—that noisy forms of motor water sport will never intrude on certain lakes. For instance, it would be intolerable if there were water skiing or motor boating on lakes such as Grasmere or Rydal Water. Noise can be controlled to an extent under the Local Government Act, 1933, but the power there is limited. More powers are needed. The new Clause would enable the local planning board to control noise.
Second, congestion is a growing problem. At present, a dangerous state of affairs is developing on some of our lakes. I think of Windermere in particular, where there ise terrible congestion by various types of boat, and where the standard of boatmanship—if that is the right word—is very varied. There has been power to control speed under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, so that the of accident can be much reduced, though it is a wonder to me and many people that far more serious accidents

have not so far occurred. A much easier form of control over speed and congestion must be found and given to local authorities than is available under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894.
Next, there is the problem of interference by one set of users with another. On the lakes, there are the interests of people who go to sail, people who go to row, those who like water skiing and the faster and more adventurous motor water sports, those who go to paddle and to swim, and those who go just to fish. They all have different interests and different approaches to the use of the lakes, and, unfortunately, they often interfere seriously with one another. For instance, water skiiers are potentially a great danger to swimmers, and all forms of boating are potentially disadvantageous to fishermen. More powers are needed so that local authorities may control water sports in our National Parks.
Powers must be given in the interests of safety. There must be power to insist that all those who drive fast speedboats shall have third-party insurance.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Charles Mapp: In the Clause there is exclusive reference to waterways. The hon. Gentleman has been arguing about lakes and has now introduced the word "watercourses". Does he mean that lakes will come under the word "waterways", which has a very limited meaning?

Mr. Jopling: I am advised that the word "waterway" covers lakes, and I believe that this point has been put to the Ministry by the Lakes Planning Board. We shall probably hear from the Minister about this later.
It is important to be able to zone the lake for secondary purposes, so that one can have speedboat racing in one part and swimming in another. It is essential that the local authorities have powers to register boats of certain types. I imagine that it would not be necessary to use them for all sorts of boats, but the powers could be held in reserve. Powers are also needed to inspect boats.
Finally, but not least important, there is a need for power to control the sanitary arrangements for the effluent from houseboats. This point was made to me very forcibly since the Committee stage by someone who is interested in setting


up an establishment on the side of the lake for young people to go for holidays. He is particularly perturbed about the prospect of setting up the establishment in a certain bay where he wants to do so because of the effluent from the many houseboats permanently moored there.
This is how the Clause was left at the Committee stage. The Government promised to do something. Since then, so far as I can gather, all that has happened is that a letter has gone round from the Ministry to a number of interested people, saying what the Government intend to do. I understand that they intend to introduce a new Clause in another place giving byelaw powers to control vessels navigating on lakes in national parks and covering many of the things about which I have been talking. They are intended to:

"(a) ensuring the safety of persons resorting to the lakes; 
(b) regulating all forms of water-based sport;
(c) conserving the amenity and natural beauty of the lakes and surrounding areas;
(d) controlling nuisance and damage."
What has worried me and people in the Lake District most is another part of that letter, which says that there will be a general saving for public rights of way, which means that the byelaws will not affect those lakes which are public rights of way. Public rights of way exist on certain lakes known in the Lake District as the highway lakes. There are four—Windermere, Ullswater, Derwentwater and Coniston. We must know what that saving over public rights of way means. If it means that on any one of those lakes the byelaws and regulations will not apply to anyone who claims a right of way, the byelaws and that new Clause will be useless on those four lakes where the powers are most needed. I hope that my fears are unfounded, because it is essential that the regulations are introduced. If it means that, why has it been necessary to exclude the lakes on which there are public rights of way? Could it be, as I have been told, that compensation would have to be paid to people who might lose their rights of way? What is the difference between a right of way on land and a right of way on water? It is possible on land to prohibit certain traffic from using rights of way.
It is possible to prohibit all wheeled vehicles under the same Clauses and even under Clause 25, powers are given to control vehicles on land highways in National Parks. Over the last two or three months, the Minister has blown rather hot and cold on this matter and we must know what he means by the phrase, "There is to be a general saving for public rights of way".
We have gone a long way and I congratulate the Government on having gone as far as they have, but it is essential that these powers are made applicable to the highway lakes, so that the good which would come from my new Clause is not marred.

Mrs. White: We are indebted to the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) for emphasising a matter of considerable and, we believe, of growing importance in amenity and recreation matters. Those of us who were on the Standing Committee will recall that when the hon. Member introduced a new Clause with precisely the same wording as this, he said that he did not mind whether we accepted it or not, provided that the Government did something, and I presume that tonight his attitude is the same. It would therefore be convenient if I explained the Government's position. At the conclusion of our Committee debate, the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), acknowledging that this was a complex problem, needing considerable consideration, said:
I think that hon. Members consider this issue to be of such importance that they would not mind if it was introduced in the Lords."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 15th February, 1968; c. 1025.]
That is what we propose. We have given undertakings and are consulting the local authorities, the Parks Commission and various sporting and land-owning interests. The consultations are still proceeding and we firmly intend to put down, in another place, a new Clause which will deal with the points made. I am not yet in a position to discuss the new Clause which has not been formalised, nor appeared on the Order Paper, and it would be most undesirable if we debated this today at half-cock, before knowing the specific implications of the Government's undertaking.
The hon. Member for Westmorland raised a matter which is troubling him,


and which he referred to in Committee, that of the highway lakes. As I understand it, the intention is that the right of way should not be extinguished but the manner of its use should be regulated. 'That can be made plain when we come to The new Clause which we have undertaken to introduce. It is best to leave it with this firm declaration of intent. We appreciate the importance of the points the hon. Member raised. They have been mentioned in Committee by hon. Members on both sides. While I gave a general undertaking in Committee that legislation would be introduced, we thought that there would be considerable pressure of opinion that we should bring it in in this Bill, and we intend to abide by our undertakings.

Dr. Reginald Bennett: Not having served on the Standing Committee but appreciating what the hon. Lady has said, may I ask whether it is the Government's intention to do something in the nature of zoning between these various incompatible occupations which take place in water, such as separating swimming from water-skiing? Will this be the nature of the provision the Government intend to introduce in another place? I see that the hon. Lady is being briefed, so perhaps I can now give her the opportunity to reply.

Mrs. White: My hon. Friend was reminding me that this is a matter in which the Sports Council takes a keen interest. I do not think we should go into details now, but the hon. Gentleman is quite right. One of the problems is the incompatibility of certain recreations, each o' which is desirable in itself but which cannot be carried on at the same time and at the same place as certain others. We hope to make provision in such a way that something sensible will be done.

Mr. Channon: It is true that in Standing Committee I said that we would have no objection if a provision on this matter had to be introduced in another place, because we were more anxious to get it done than to stick to our rights and insist that it be introduced here first. I hope that, when the Minister of State is considering this point, she will bear in mind not only the debates in Committee but the points made tonight by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling), who speaks with

tremendous experience of this problem and has done the House a service by drawing attention to it, for it is a vital problem which is in some ways the most urgent aspect of the Bill.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will wish to withdraw the Clause. I know she will not want to discuss them now but I am sure that we can take it from the hon. Lady that his remarks tonight and in relation to the letter she referred to earlier will be considered before the final decision is taken. With these remarks, I hope we can now leave this new Clause in the hope that we shall see a satisfactory conclusion in another place.

Mrs. White: I willingly give the undertaking the hon. Gentleman asks for.

Mr. Jopling: I shall seek leave to withdraw the new Clause but I am a little disappointed that the hon. Lady has not been able to allay my doubts and fears and those of many people in the Lake District about the saving for highway lakes. I plead with her to ensure, between now and when the Bill reaches another place, that everything will be done to make sure that the byelaws and powers are available on the highway lakes, because I cannot stress too strongly how important it is that such powers should be given. Otherwise, we shall have the most terrible accident in that part of England. The matter rests on her shoulders in the next few weeks to see that these powers are written into the Bill and that the highway lakes are not excluded.
Having said that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave withdrawn.

New Clause 23.

PUBLIC TRANSPORT SERVICES IN NATIONAL PARKS.

The local planning authority shall have power to operate or promote a public transport service whenever in their judgment such a service would overcome congestion arising from private vehicles in a National Park.—[Mr. Peter M. Jackson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I suggest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the situation referred to in the new Clause has already arisen. There has been published recently—within the last two years—a traffic survey undertaken by the local planning authorities of Cumberland, Westmorland and Lancashire, and the conclusion of the report is that by 1984 it will be necessary to bring about a complete restriction on vehicular traffic within National Parks.
I will not detain the House very long in moving this new Clause, because I think the need for such services is self-evident. I should, nevertheless, like to support the argument by quoting one set of figures.
In 1960 there were something like 15,250,000 people living within three hours of the Lake District. By 1974 it is estimated that this figure will have risen to 21,500,000, and by the year 2010, it will have risen to 25,500,000.
The Lake District, as perhaps many hon. Members will know, is very small, and obviously it would not be possible to

accommodate the number of vehicles likely to arise from this growing population. It will, therefore, be necessary to impose the kind of restriction which the planning authority envisage having to impose by 1984. Although they envisage the possibility of introducing this restriction, they must nevertheless cater for the needs of tourists, and they suggest that tourists will park their cars at large car parks on the perimeter of the park and then transfer to various forms of public transport.
It is quite probable that this public transport—minibuses or ordinary buses—will require public subsidy of some kind, and it is for this reason I move this new Clause tonight.
As I understand it, the National Park authorities do not have the power under existing legislation to pay such subsidies. I should like to see them given such power.
After tabling this new Clause, I had drawn to my attention the excellent provisions of Clause 34 of the Transport Bill, and I understand that this Clause will allow county and county district councils to assist in the provision of rural bus services, and if this is done, assistance will be given by the Ministry of Transport to the extent of some 50 per cent.
The point may well be met through the provisions of this Clause, perhaps in preference to the new Clause which I am moving. Nevertheless, I hope that


the Minister, in his reply, will say something about the powers which National Park authorities will have in the future to meet this growing problem.

Mr. Skeffington: My hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) has raised a very interesting point.
Generally speaking, I should have thought that there was not much need for this sort of provision because there is a multiplicity of services, provided either by large companies, some of which are publicly owned, or by private operators, and of course, in certain areas by local authorities themselves. But authorities in National Parks of course do not have these powers. With the tremendous growth in motor traffic near these delightful areas, nearly everyone wants some restrictions, and there might be a case for minibuses. We might look at this, but any provision would not be outside the general traffic commissioner licensing regulations, which are a necessary safeguard and important rationalising element.
Some provision like this was made in the Lea Valley Regional Park Act, 1966, which was a useful experiment. I can go no further than that, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will realise that for a few highly specialised areas the door is not closed.

Mr. Jopling: I will have to oppose the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) for what is, I think, the first time in our consideration of the Bill. I am aware of the survey two or three years ago by Cumberland, Westmorland and Lancashire County Councils and the proposal of minibuses, which would be essential to take people to beauty spots like Tam Hows, near Hawkshead, or the Little Langdale-Blea Tam-Great Langdale circuit.
The Parliamentary Secretary was a little misleading in talking about public transport, since this would be a special

service, with minibuses whisking people from the main car parks to the beauty spots. An immediate problem is that the car parks would have to be vast and within the National Parks themselves. In the first example I gave, for instance, there would have to be something at Hawkshead, and, for the other circuit, there would have to be something at Ambleside. Such huge car parks would be undesirable. This congestion happens only at weekends, and the Lake District season lasts only four or five weeks, and only three or four days a week, so the minibuses would be idle—filling the car parks—for most of the year and most of the season.
They would be only relatively economic in getting people about, because, since a car holds about four people and a minibus 12, one bus would replace only three cars. This is not a striking saving of vehicles using these narrow roads. Considering the enormous losses which would occur, I do not believe that the project would be worth while. I am dubious about the scheme and, while something must be done about the traffic stagnation in the Lake District, being the representative of part of that area I am not sure that this would be the way to tackle the problem.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I hope that the Minister will look further into the proposal, despite the remarks of the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling). I have considerable knowledge of the Lake District and other National Park areas and I should have thought that the Langdale and Little Langdale areas, including Wasdale, would benefit from such a scheme. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will carry out the undertaking he gave.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: In view of my hon. Friend's reasonable reply, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause.

PUBLIC VEHICULAR RIGHTS OF WAY.

5
(1) For the purpose of ensuring a fair balance between the rights of different sections of the public to enjoy the countryside whether on foot or on horseback or in or on vehicles, and for the purpose of confirming or otherwise determining and defining the precise nature of the right of public vehicular way along highways which are not classified roads and are shown on maps (that is to say, draft, provisional or definitive maps made by surveying authorities under Part IV of the Act of 1949) in such a manner as to leave the public in doubt whether such public vehicular right exists and as to what kind of vehicle is included in the right, the Minister shall (in respect of every authority to which Part IV of the Act of 1949 applies), on petition made within one year of the commencement of


10
this Act by any person or body of persons claiming an interest in such public vehicular right of way, and within two years of the commencement of this Act, hold a public inquiry.


15
(2) Regulations made by the Minister may prescribe the form which every public inquiry held under the foregoing subsection (I) shall take, provided that such inquiry shall be presided over by a person not having any connection with the surveying authority or the Commission.


(3) At every inquiry held under the foregoing subsection (1) evidence may be given concerning the right of public vehicular way along any highway by or on behalf of any person or body of persons.


20
(4) The Commission shall give evidence to every inquiry held under the foregoing subsection (1); and shall submit to the inquiry all maps and records which have a bearing on the purpose of the inquiry; and shall, in the preparation of its evidence, take account of representations and recommendations (including recommendations as to maps and records to be submitted as evidence) made to it by any person or body


25
of persons claiming an interest in the purpose of the inquiry; and shall, as part of its evidence, present a schedule of all such representations and recommendations together with a summary of the substance of each one and an explanation of the reason for any failure to accept any recommendation; and shall supply any person or body of persons who made representations or recommendations with a copy of the schedule not less than


30
six weeks before the opening of the inquiry.



(5) Section twenty of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 (which provides for appeals to the High Court by way of case stated on a point of law) shall with the necessary modifications apply in relation to this section.



(6) The surveying authority shall (subject to the provisions of Part IV of the Act of 1949


35
where applicable, but notwithstanding anything in the proviso to subsection (5)(of section 34 of that Act), within one year of the final determination of the rights referred to in subsection (1) of this section, prepare a revised map showing clearly all highways and differentiating clearly between one kind of highway and another, with special reference to highways not being classified roads along which there is a public vehicular


40
right of way, as determined and defined by the inquiry, and distinguishing between one kind of vehicle and another in respect of which the right of way exists, and explaining clearly on the face of the map who has and who has hot the right of (way along each highway, and stating clearly any other details which might help any person, including any motor-cyclist or other cyclist, in any circumstances to know where he has a right


45
to go in the countryside.



(7) The meaning assigned to the expression ' road used as a public path ' in section 27 of the Act of 1949 shall cease to have effect.



(8) Nothing in section 10 of Part III of the First Schedule to the Act of 1949 (which provides that certain maps shall not be questioned in any legal proceedings whatsoever)


50
shall be so construed as to interfere with the operation of this section.—[Mr. Iremonger.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Iremonger: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to discuss the following proposed Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) to the new Clause: In line 4, leave out 'right of public vehicular' and insert 'public right of'.

In line 7, leave out from 'doubt' to as ' and insert:
'as to what public right of way exists and, in the case of a public vehicular right of way'.

In line 10, leave out 'vehicular'.

In line 18, leave out 'public vehicular.

In line 39, leave out 'vehicular'.

In line 41, after first 'of', insert:
'right and another and, in the case of a public vehicular right of way, between one kind of'.

In line 44, after 'any', insert 'equestrian'.

and the following Amendments: No. 45, in Clause 21, page 23, line 21, after 'bridleway', insert:
'or carriageway or other highway, not in either case being a classified road, along which there is a public vehicular right of way,'.

No. 46, in line 24, after bridleway insert:
'or carriageway or other highway, not in either case being a classified road, along which there is a public vehicular right of way,'.

No. 47, in line 27, after 'bridleway', insert:
'or carriageway or other highway, not in either case being a classified road, along which there is a public vehicular right of way,'.

No. 48, in line 28, after bridleway insert:
'or carriageway or other highway, not in either case being a classified road, along which there is a public vehicular right of way,'.

No. 49, in line 31, after bridleway insert:
'or carriageway or other highway, not in either case being a classified road, along which there is a public vehicular right of way,'.

No. 50, in line 33, leave out subsection (3).

No. 52, in line 44, after bridleway insert:
'or carriageway or other highway, not in either case being a classified road, along which there is a public vehicular right of way,'.

No. 54, in page 24, line 4, after 'bridle-way', insert:
'or carriageway or other highway, not in either case being a classified road, along which there is a public vehicular right of way,'.

No. 56, in line 8, after bridleway insert:
'or carriageway or other highway, not in either case being a classified road, along which there is a public vehicular right of way,'.

No. 58, in line 9, at end insert:
(7) Every signpost or other sign or notice erected or placed along a carriageway or highway, not in either case being a classified road, along which there is a public vehicular right of way shall indicate clearly the class or classes of vehicle to which the right applies and does not apply.
(8) Any person or body of persons may apply to a magistrates' court for an order requiring the responsible authority to remove or alter or replace any signpost or sign or notice which is incorrect or misleading or inadequate in respect of any of the foregoing provisions of this section.

No. 91, in Schedule 4, page 46, line 49, at end insert:


7 &amp; 8 Eliz. 2. c. 25.
The Highways Act 1959.
In section 109, the words 'stopped up or', and related and consequential words.

Mr. Iremonger: Although I was not a member of the Standing Committee, there are a number of points to which I wish

to draw attention. At the beginning of business today I presented a Petition on behalf of the British Motorcyclists' Federation bearing more than 7,000 signatures. Hon. Members will see that I am not representing a paltry interest; and, for an organisation like the Federation to produce a Petition signed by so many people, there is obviously a great deal of high feeling on this issue. The prime purpose of the Clause is in its opening words:
… on ensuring a fair balance between the rights of different sections of the public to enjoy the countryside whether on foot or on horseback or in or on vehicles …
The motivation behind the Clause may be deduced from the words "on vehicles". Although the grievances of motorcyclists first made my hon. Friends and I aware of the defects in the Bill—which the Clause seeks to remedy—those grievances are shared to a high degree by the users of motor cars and other vehicles.
The Bill, as amended in Committee, does not meet these defects and the earlier Acts, on which it is founded, have failed to provide the fair balance to which the Clause refers. Indeed, the balance is weighted against motorcyclists and other vehicle users. The old machinery for establishing and mapping rights of way in the countryside has tended over the years to deny to both motorcyclists and other vehicle users the rights of way to which they are entitled, and to leave them in confusion as to what rights of way they have in the countryside.
The purpose of the new Clause is also to provide a new machinery by way of an unbiased public inquiry and clear maps, based on the findings of the inquiry, to establish the rights of way for vehicle users. The existing machinery in Part IV of the 1949 Act should have done this, but it has often failed to do so, largely because the machinery was managed by interests hostile to vehicle users. It is fair to say that there are honourable exceptions in certain counties.
The new machinery, which would use parts of the old machinery where convenient, would provide an alternative procedure and impartial decisions, without delay, for the benefit of those who have lost confidence in the old. The public inquiry is, therefore, the central


feature of the new Clause, and I will explain its details, functioning and the reasons behind them. I win do this subsection by subsection seriatim, but I want to jump ahead and straight away to ask the House to look at subsection (7), because that pictures the real cause of the whole trouble. Seeing the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) in his place, I hesitate to say, "The nigger in the woodpile"—

Mr. Andrew Faulds: I should hope so!

Mr. Iremonger: —but that is a vulgar and old-fashioned expression describing what the subsection seeks to remove. The subsection says:
The meaning assigned to the expression 'road used as a public path' in section 27 of the Act of 1949 shall cease to have effect.
Roads used as public paths are known in the language of people who talk about these things as "rupps". I was tempted when I drafted this Clause to add, "the expression 'rupps' shall be deemed obscene" and that its use would be punishable by a fine not exceeding 5s., but I resisted the temptation. Nevertheless, the expression "rupps" has given rise to endless trouble.
The definition in the 1949 Act, Section 27 (6), says:
'road used as a public path' means a highway, other than a public path, used by the public mainly for the purpose for which footpaths or bridleways are so used.
If we look back to see what a "public path" is, we find:
'public path' means a highway being either a footpath or a bridleway
If we look back further we see what a footpath or a bridleway is. They are fairly reasonably described as highways over which the public have right of way on foot or on horseback. The definition of
road used as a public path
as being
a highway, other than a public path, used by the public mainly for the purposes for which footpaths or bridleways are so used.
is a Parliamentary enormity. I cannot think how it came to be embodied in any Act which has been through this House. I have not perused the ultimate meaning of "rupps" to its archaic depths, but I think that it could he used to abolish the monarchy and to dissolve

Parliament, in which case I would be entirely in favour of it. It is so bad that the 1950 Commons and Open Spaces Footpaths Preservation Society's green handbook of "Instructions to Walkers" gradually became discredited because it was based on this bad definition and the public was driven back to the Act, which gave no help.
We are therefore driven back to the position where, if one is walking in the countryside, one does not know whether one is on a highway or a road used as a public path. It would be equally difficult for anyone to try to stop one because he could not tell whether one should be there or not although there may be a road marked as a public footpath or bridleway and it is a road where there is to be vehicular right of way.
We had the difficulty of deciding whether we should try to amend the definition of a road used as a public footpath, or simply to get rid of it. I am glad to see in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government Report of the Footpaths Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Arthur Gosling recommendation 15, which says:
The definition 'roads used as public paths' should be abandoned. These roads should be surveyed by the responsible authorities who should decide in each case whether the road should be designated as an unclassified road, a bridleway or a footpath.
I think the House may feel that in this vital respect, my view, which anticipated slightly the Gosling Report, is borne out by the conclusions of the Gosling Committee. One may also feel that the recommendations foreshadow in some degree my recommendation as to an inquiry, because having an survey would be perfectly satisfactory if the surveying authorities commanded confidence.
The inquiry, therefore, has got to say definitely whether a vehicle has a right of way along a particular highway other than main roads and so on. It may decide, according to my intention in drafting the new Clause, either that a vehicle has a right of way and should continue to have a right of way, or it may decide that it has a right of way but that it should not continue to have a right of way. Again it may decide that it has not got a right of way and should continue not to have a right of way, or that it has not got one but should have one in future. In every case the inquiry


should specify which class or classes of vehicles should have a right of way and which should not—cars, tractors, bicycles, motor bicycles, invalid chairs and all the rest.
To some extent, the House has got to face the fact that the issues which the inquiry would be required to decide, apart from purely historical ones, are not strictly justiciable. But then, this is not a court of law. There is a provision under subsection (5) for appeal to the High Court on points of law, and we are now hardened, if not reconciled, to unjusticiable issues being decided by quasi-judicial tribunals. Although we ought to scrutinise with an unfriendly eye proposals for any proliferation, I must say that I do not find this proposal offensive. In any case, this inquiry procedure will be fair.
The essence of the proposed new Clause is that it recognises that there are genuine and cherished conflicting interests when it comes to dealing with the countryside. My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling), who is not in his place at the moment, represents in this House the shade of Wordsworth who
wandered lonely as a cloud
and he gave expression to a profound and endearing strain in the English character which we ought to protect and which it would not be pretentious to say subsists in and inspires the ramblers of today. It might be unjust to be too Pharisaical and toffee-nosed about a lot of other people who are learning to love the countryside, even if they do go to it, and perhaps want to go through it, in motor cars or on motor cycles. They deserve fair consideration from this House and from any legislation that we pass. It ought to be possible to give them a fair hearing and it should not be too much to ask that they should have a fair deal.
As I shall make clear, many of the rights of way which would be considered by the inquiry proposed in the new Clause are historically a part of the ancient liberties of the people and part of the heritage of this country.

Mr. John Lee: The hon. Gentleman has set out a very elaborate Clause. Can he be a little more specific about the part of subsection (1) which says:

… any person or body or persons claiming an interest in such public vehicular right of way"?
It is a very wide range of categories. Will the hon. Gentleman be more specific as to how wide it is?

Mr. Iremonger: No. I intended that it should include the hon. Gentleman if he wanted it to, or anyone else. It seemed to me that nobody who had not got a genuine interest would bother to claim an interest in the inquiry. I want to make it as wide as possible and I refrained from saying "any motor cyclists" because I thought it might seem invidious. Therefore, I purposely left it so wide.
11.30 p.m.
The Clause would provide a fair hearing and it ought to provide a fair deal. We must consider what the criteria should be. I suggest that they should be, first, historical—simply the historical evidence referred to in a later subsection. Secondly, in respect of what right of way ought to exist as opposed to what can be established to have existed historically, bearing in mind the nature of modern society, in which practically everyone who ever goes into the countryside either is or might be or will be a motorist or a motor cyclist, the understanding which the inquiry will have of people's needs, and the evidence given by interested parties, the criteria should simply be that over-riding demand of the opening words of the Clause, which is to strike "a fair balance".
Subsection (2) provides that anyone holding the inquiry, the details of which would be prescribed by regulation by that Minister, would have two great virtues. He could not be nobbled by the authorities, which have over the past 20 years forfeited the confidence of the public, and he would not be connected with the Commission, because the Clause provides a different and useful rôle for the Commission later. It might be said that the inquiry could be biased in favour of motor cyclists. The answer to that is twofold. First, if the Clause indeed makes that possible, that could be remedied in another place. Secondly, after 20 years of bias against the motor cyclist at least that would be a change. Seriously, the House must be concerned that the procedure really is fair. Having


made the proviso that there shall be no connection with the authorities or with the Commission, the House could leave the details to the Minister.
For the rest, once the inquiry is established, it is a case of every man and every legitimate interest for himself, with complete freedom to anybody, as provided in subsection (3), to give evidence. The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) will see that it is just as wide for anyone to give evidence as it is for anyone to petition for the inquiry to be set up—ramblers, fishermen, preservationists, and those who have heretofore tried to have a fair hearing but have been refused.

Mr. John Lee: Does the hon. Gentleman intend to say more about the criteria? He said that the first criterion was historical. Does he intend to say more about that, because what is strange is that all this machinery is set out, but the definitions by which the inquiry will evaluate the pros and cons of an application are not set out?

Mr. Iremonger: I shall deal with that point and explain exactly the type of evidence I have in mind for the historical criteria. Once the inquiry has that historical criteria before it, it may say, in whatever sense it thinks right, that the historical criteria should be discarded because they are no longer relevant or that they justify the inquiry in upgrading a footpath, say, to a public carriageway. It is entirely a matter for the individual judgment of the inquiry.
It has been felt in some quarters, particularly by motor cyclists, that motor cyclists have been treated with almost arrogant disdain by many of those responsible for making decisions of this kind. Motor cyclists may have antagonised some individuals by having noisy exhausts or this or that, but they should not be subjected to prejudice when it comes to deciding such an important right as public vehicular rights of way, which applies to motorists just as it applies to motor cyclists.
Subsection (4) is of particular importance because it provides that, whereas anyone may give evidence to the public inquiry, the Countryside Commission must give evidence to it. What is more, it must give a certain kind of evidence,

or it must explain why it is not doing it, at the behest of anyone interested. I can best explain the point of this by showing how handicapped anyone is who tries to establish the existence of ancient rights of vehicular way. This may go some way to explain to the hon. Member for Reading, what has to be decided.
If one is conscientiously to decide the historical question alone, one has to check, among other things—according to my information—original walkers' statements under the 1949 Act as to the width, metalling, gates and the years of use; the Local Government Act 1929 delegation maps; lists of upgradings from lower categories which should be available for public inspection; the pre-1835 Highways Act maps in the records department; enclosure awards and maps, tithe maps, apportionment rolls and altered apportionment maps; 1878 to 1894 highways board minutes; the pre-1835 to 1878 parish surveyors' minutes; also the disturnpiked roads lists, particularly where the land was not specifically handed back to the owners; the 25-inch Ordnance Survey maps of 1868–74 at the British Museum, where parish area books are often a source of proof. Parish minute books may still record very ancient rights. It is necessary, also, to check physically for signs of right of way such as engineered cuttings, horizontally clipped hedges of long standing and ruts and hollow ways made by timber dragging. Also, if necessary, one must interview old inhabitants free of local pressures or obligations.
All this should be done by qualified surveyors employed ad hoc by the Commission. They should be open to suggestions from interested parties of the kind I have mentioned, and there should be made clear at the inquiry what suggestions as to evidence to be admitted have been made and how conscientiously they have been followed up. Thus, the inquiry would be fully informed to everyone's satisfaction, and its decisions would command confidence.
So much for the inquiry. Subsection (5) merely provides for appeal to the High Court on a point of law. Subsection (6) provides for the end product of the inquiry, that is to say, that the surveying authority should do as a result of the inquiry what it should have done under


Part IV long ago. It should prepare a revised map showing clearly all highways and differentiating clearly between one kind of highway and another, with special reference to highways which are not classified roads along which there is a public vehicular right of way as decided by the inquiry, distinguishing between one kind of vehicle and another in respect of which a right of way exists, explaining clearly on the face of the map who has and who has not a right of way along each highway, and stating clearly any other details which might help any person, including any motorcyclist or cyclist, to know in any circumstances where he has a right to go in the countryside.
That is the new Clause. Taken with it are the Amendments to Clause 21 concerning signposting. They are designed to ensure that carriageways as established by the inquiry, as well as footpaths and bridleways, should be signposted. Amendment No. 58, which would add a new subsection (7) to Clause 21, provides that signposts shall show where there is a vehicular right of way, and to which classes of vehicle the right of way applies.
Subsection (8) is of particular importance in that it enables any person to get an order from a magistrates' court to make the authority replace a misleading signpost, that is, where there is a signpost which says that a highway is a footpath or a bridleway—which it may well be—but which fails to say that it is also a carriageway and, therefore, misleads people on motor cycles or in cars into thinking that they may not go there when, in truth, they may. I understand that this has been particularly obnoxious in the County of Hampshire, which would be obliged to replace the signposts with the correct indication of who could go there.
Amendment No. 91 would add to the repeal Schedule, Schedule 4. It would take out of Section 109 of the Highways Act, 1959, the words "stopped up or" and any others which serve a like fell purpose. A frontager on a neglected maintained carriageway can extend his garden across, or nearly across, the carriageway, and can then apply to the highway authority to have the carriageway stopped up, or nearly stopped up, that is, down-graded to a footpath. So, on a whim, he can use the law to enrich

himself and deprive the public of a right. The authority has a bias in favour of down-grading or stopping up, because it then relieves itself of any obligation to maintain the highway, and the bench may be content to preserve ramblers' rights alone by down-grading, because vehicle users' rights may not be represented to it or be sympathetically considered. This cannot be right, and the House could not wish this abuse to continue. It is a small point, but I do not regret its being taken with the new Clause concerning public vehicular rights of way because the same principle is involved, namely, that all sections of the public should have a fair deal in determining, limiting and preserving rights of way, which are no small part of people's liberties.
Therefore, I hope that the Clause and the Amendments commend themselves to the House and that the Minister, even if he does not feel that he can accept the Clause exactly as drafted—though I fail to see how it could possibly be drafted better—will at least proclaim emphatically and reassuringly that he supports the principle and tell us exactly how he proposes otherwise to remedy the manifest abuses to which I have tried to draw the attention of the House.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) has put forward, though I shall not go to the lengths to which he went in the very able way in which he presented his argument.
The section of the public on whose behalf he made his speech—motor cyclists—are in some fear that the Bill will deprive them of certain rights which they have had up to now, and the House would not feel that this would be a good thing. My hon. Friend is a vigorous champion of the motor cyclists, and he showed this in his excellent Second Reading speech and again tonight. In many parts of the country motor cycling is a very valuable and popular sport. In the Wye Valley in Herefordshire and Wales a great deal of scrambling takes place, as it does in many other parts of the country. A number of us have received small petitions bearing 50 to 100 signatures. My hon. Friend referred to a petition bearing about 7,000 names which he presented to the House this afternoon.
11.45 p.m.
The motor cycle unions or centres supporting these young men are responsible organisations and what the hon. Gentleman was saying to the House a moment ago was that in all consideration of the closing up or using of public rights of way, the views of these motor cycle unions should be taken into account. This sport has a great effect on the motor cycle industry, affects exports to some extent, and in some ways affects our ability to win sporting trophies overseas. An example of this is a Radnorshire neighbour of mine, a Mr. Lewis, who is a motor cycle international gold trophy winner. We are proud of him. It is a tough sport and it does a lot of good. Some will say that it is noisy but the noise of a motor cycle, even of 20 motor cycles, is as nothing to that of some of the aeroplanes which break the sound barrier in quiet country districts which I know, and I do not believe that this argument can be sustained.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary in reply will make encouraging noises and that he will be able to say that when local authorities are making decisions about the user of certain public rights of way and "roughs", they should be made to consider all interests, including motor cycle interests. Section 1(1) (d) of the R Dad Traffic Regulation Act, 1967, applies to this. We hope that the Parliamentary Secretary can help us and the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Skeffington: One should at least pay tribute to the ingenuity of the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Ire-monger) who has almost written a new Transport Bill of his own. Although I will not weary the House with technical points, he would have succeeded in amending eight or nine Acts and many dozens of Sections in them. There may be a case for doing it, but not, I think, in the Countryside Bill.
I want to concentrate on the essential points which have led him to initiate this important discussion. There is nothing in the Bill that in any way impinges on or alters the existing status of motor cyclists. I was therefore a little astonished, as were some other hon. Members, perhaps, at the rather violent language used by some motor cyclists who had been led to believe that this Bill was taking away some of their precious rights.

As this was clearly contrary to the purpose of the Bill, and to anything in the White Paper, I was surprised. Twice I saw the Secretary of the British Motorcyclists Federation and received a deputation. I started by saying to them that I was incensed by the terms of some of the letters which had come to me, because they were a complete distortion of anything in the Bill.
The Federation was good enough to say that those of its members who had sent such letters—not all the writers were members—had been misinformed about the purposes of the Bill, and I think that the deputation went away in a happier frame of mind. I must put it on record, and I hope this will be understood by hon. Members who have been worried about it, that there is nothing in the Bill which takes away any right motor cyclists now have. I hope that that is clearly understood and that hon. Members will have no hesitation in quoting my statement if they are approached by individual motor cyclists or others on this point.
But there is something in the point that in general, for one reason or another, motor cyclists as a body feel that they have not always had their needs properly considered. It may be that perhaps they have not always used the right methods. One method is to do a good deal of research into legislation so that they can keep apprised of events and take appropriate action at an early stage. That is what other bodies do, many of them with less resources than the motor cyclists.
Motor cycling is a useful method of getting about and it is a healthy sport. Nothing I have to say detracts from the good sportsmanship and fellowship of those engaging in this exhilarating pastime. As I told the deputation, all those concerned with sport, and especially my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, are anxious to see that the local authorities make proper provision. That is essential. But trouble has often arisen in dealing with the countryside because of incompatibility of activities, leading to argument as to which activity should use which land and under what conditions.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: I agree entirely that full provision should be made but would my hon. Friend agree that it


should be provided outside our National Parks?

Mr. Skeffington: I would have thought that that would normally be the case. But that sort of decision should be left to the bodies I shall indicate. The difficulties began to arise in connection with the motor cyclists when the Gosling Committee was set up. Various representatives of amenity bodies were appointed to it but the motor cyclists were not selected. However, I pointed out to their representatives at an early stage and when I saw the Secretary, that there was nothing to prevent them giving evidence, and I am glad to say that they took my advice and did so.
Apprehensions probably began to arise when the interim proposals of the Gosling Committee were made known, particularly paragraph 69, which recommended that the category "roads used as public paths" in Section 27 of the 1949 Act should be abandoned and gave the reasons for that recommendation. Although the Committee had sympathy with the difficulties of motor cyclists, it did not think that motor cycles should normally be ridden along footpaths and this is a conclusion with which many people would agree.
The motor cycling fraternity became alarmed that its interests were going to be abandoned and I tried to make the position clear as regards paragraph 69 and also as regards paragraph 70, which recommended that these roads should be surveyed by the responsible authorities to decide whether they should be designated as unclassified roads, bridleways or footpaths.
Fears may arise in this connection and this is something that will be dealt with at a later stage. In so far as there are any fears, I hope that I can put them at rest. I indicated in Committee what we proposed, although we have not been able to include it on Report, because it requires further drafting. We had in mind that county councils in the normal way would look at these roads and come to certain conclusions about their future use, either as footpaths or bridleways, or for any other use. They would then follow the common procedure under the Highways Act, whereby the conclusions would be advertised in the London Gazette and local papers.
There would be a period for objections by people who felt their interests were affected. If there were objections, there would be a normal public inquiry and finally that matter would go to the Minister, who would confirm or not confirm. There would be three opportunities for objection, first after the authority had made its proposal, secondly at the inquiry and then on appeal to the Minister.
We cannot do that at this stage. This only relates to the small category of roads used as public paths, and not to the whole gamut of thoroughfares, as does the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. I can assure the hon. Gentleman and, I hope that he will assure motor cyclists, that they will have every opportunity of seeing that their needs are thoroughly understood and their opinions ventilated.
The new Clause goes enormously wide and the hon. Member is, as I have said, almost writing a fresh Transport Act on his own. The procedure for the general surveying of roads, to which he refers, is already provided for in one or other of the Sections of the 1959 Act. This procedure has to be followed before any road can be created or designated. It would be impossible, even if it were technically within the ambit of the Bill, to include this vast range of alterations in so many Acts.
He referred to unclassified roads. I do not suppose he would want to be concerned with many of those coming under that definition. There are something like 94,000 miles of them. It would be quite beyond the sort of additional procedure he is suggesting for the surveying authorities to undertake this and certainly it would be beyond the Commission. The Commission will have a great many responsibilities. It will not get all the staff that it requires, or all the resources that it would like. We are taking the power now because we want the Commission to get started. To have this enormous responsibility, appearing and giving evidence at all these inquiries, would be an impossible task. It is not fitted for it. It would not have the figures or data. Hitherto the Commission has operated only in the national parks. Although I understand why the hon. Gentleman wants this particular body to do this, it would not be fit nor proper for it to do so, in the light of what has been said and the resources at its disposal.
12 m.
The hon. Gentleman made further points about signposting. This is a matter for the Minister of Transport. There are considerable powers under Section 55(2) of the Road Traffic Act and it would be duplication to deal with it in this Bill.
Amendment No. 91 would have far reaching consequences going wider than the hon. Gentleman suggests, and I could not recommend the House to accept that either.
Having had his opportunity of ventilating what some people feel is a great grievance and having been assured by me of the procedure concerning roads, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that the motor cyclists have nothing to fear about their rights of representation. In the light of the assurance that I have given I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that he has done his duty and will withdraw the Clause.

Mr. Ray Mawby: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary suggests that the new Clause is a new Transport Bill. If so, I prefer it to the present Transport Bill that the Government have brought in.
I believe that the hon. Gentleman has gone a long way to settle a number of the fears which have been expressed. Many of us have received communications based upon the fears held by many people that this Bill would take away some of their rights. The hon. Gentleman has helped us considerably by showing that many of those fears are unjustified.
The view of the majority of the House is that in dealing with this matter we want to aim for a fair balance between all users. The Bill should not be considered as one which gives a charter to ramblers, to people riding horses, or to any one section, but as trying to maintain the balance between all who want to use the countryside for their own particular form of recreation. The way in which the Bill should be treated is by making certain that no one group enjoying its type of recreation interferes unduly with others who are also trying to enjoy their type of recreation. The balance has to be maintained, and the new Clause seeks to lay down that there will be some form of inquiry whereby all the people affected will have the right to be: heard. The fact that they have the

right to be heard will not lead to a large number of objections being raised; it will considerably reduce the fears that are held by many people at the present time.
I am grateful to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for what he has said. He has set a lot of my fears at rest, and I think that the fears of others will be considerably reduced when they read his speech.

Mr. Jopling: I am glad that the Minister said what he did, and I am particularly glad from a constituency point of view that he rejects the suggestion of the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) that all forms of motor sport in National Parks should be banned. Of course, it should be well controlled, and certainly it is in the Lake District.
I have been approached by officials of Westmorland motor cycle clubs. They have been running events in the Lake District area for 60 years and have maintained excellent relationships with farmers, landowners and public authorities. The events are extremely well run and controlled, and I am sure that that state of affairs will continue.
Reverting for a moment to a new Clause which I moved earlier, it would be slightly anomalous to allow speedboat racing on Windermere while banning motor sport from the National Parks. Provided that it is properly run, I hope that it will be allowed to continue.

Mr. Channon: The House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) for moving his new Clause and enabling us to discuss the sport of motor cycling and its position under the Bill. I imagine that all hon. Members have received representations from motor cyclists who, very properly, wanted to put forward their points of view.
As I understand it, what the Minister has said makes it clear that the Government propose to do what my hon. Friend asks. They propose to conduct a survey of public vehicular rights of way. In Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary told us that before there was any question of adopting the Gosling Committee's proposal to abolish the definition of roads used as public paths, these roads should


be surveyed by the responsible authorities, who would then decide in each case the future category of a road. In effect, therefore, the greater part of my hon. Friend's Amendment asking for a survey of these rights of way is to be met by the Government.
It is not surprising that the motor cyclists have been confused by some of these points. After all, the Gosling Report was not available in its entirety to the public until last Thursday. All that they had to go on before that were the remarks of Ministers as each separate set of interim proposals was published.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will draw the attention of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport to my hon. Friend's remarks about signposts on these roads. As he suggested, I have looked at Section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act, and it is true that the appropriate Minister may give directions to highway authorities for placing traffic signs of a prescribed type on highways. In addition, the motor cyclists feel strongly that there are misleading signs on certain roads, and they suggest that there should be a proper form of sign, making it clear what vehicles are allowed on each road of this kind.
I am sure that the House is grateful to the Minister for his reply, which has gone a great deal of the way to allaying our anxieties and those of the motor cyclists, when they have a chance of reading what he has said. In view of the hon. Gentleman's answer, it may be that my hon. Friend will not wish to press his Amendment. His main point will be met by the survey which is to be made by the Government, though not in the way that he suggests in his new Clause. If any motor cyclists write to me, I shall refer them to the Minister's remarks and say that there is no threat to them. If there is a threat to them in the future, the blame for it will be on the Minister's head, and I should not like to be in his shoes.

Mr. Iremonger: If what the Minister was suggesting was a survey by the present authorities of the roads used as public paths, this would have been considered very disappointing by motor cyclists in particular, and other vehicle users, because they have lost confidence

in the present authorities. They regard them, rightly or wrongly, as being dilatory and biased. The main purpose of the new Clause was to try to get an independent authoritative mind brought to bear on the anxieties of, and the representations by, motor cyclists. If I understood the Minister aright, he was saying that the matter would come to him in the last resort, and that anyone who had a feeling of grievance about the decisions of the authorities and the result of the survey would be heard by him.
If I can take that as being the nub of what he was saying, and if I can say to motor cyclists that even if they cannot have exactly the kind of inquiry which they have suggested, at least they will have the Minister as their last resort—after all, they will be aware that Ministers are answerable to the House, which is a great protection—they may feel that they have been, not so much reassured. as given a substantial new right, the lack of which they felt before. I think, therefore, that at this stage it would be best for me to wish the Minister well in the carrying out of the proposals he suggested to the House, and to beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 25.

AMENDMENT OF ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATION ACT 1967.

Before making an order under section 1 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967, the authority shall consult with any body which appears to it to have an interest in the countryside, and the Minister may require it to consult with any body.—[Mr. Iremonger.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Iremonger: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This Clause is about trials, and the point is that Section 1 of the Road Traffic Act, 1967, provides in subsection (1)(e) that road traffic regulations which restrict the right of the public to use roads may be made
for preserving the character of the road in a case where it is specially suitable for use by persons on horseback or on foot.
Clause 25(2) of the Bill amplifies and adds to that provision by saying that regulations may be made
for the purpose of conserving or enhancing the natural beauty of the area, or of affording


better opportunities for the public to enjoy the area for recreation or the study of nature.
The object of the new Clause is to try to ensure that that subsection will not be used dishonestly to stop trials which are tests of riding skill and an essential part of the motor cycling sport. The trouble is that there is a history of suspicion behind this because the Road Traffic Act, 1960, Section 26, which was not intended for the purpose at all, was used in 1964, for example, to close a road to public traffic. I am referring to Wise's Lane, Ashtead, in Kent, and there are other examples in the Dartford Rural District in the case of Wood Lane, Darenth and Ash Church Lane, which was closed because one man went down it on a motor cycle one day. These roads were closed by this method—and one of them was used for the trials of the South-East Centre of the Auto Cycle Union—simply because it was thought that there was no other legal way of controlling the holding of trials.
Trials are now controlled, as it is right they should be, under the Road Traffic Act, 1962, and the Minister of Transport has a standing committee to investigate any complaints against those taking part. So the control is strictly exercised and grudgingly, perhaps, but none the less wholeheartedly accepted by the motor cyclists.
12.15 a.m.
But the danger is seen here that the general use of roads could be stopped maliciously, or by individuals, against the public interest. For example, the frontager who had a property near the head of a dalehead road at the end of which was a car park could get the road stopped at the point where is came abreast of his property and so on, chopping backwards ore by one a few yards at a time, so that the road could be stopped and made no longer open to vehicular traffic. The British Motorcyclists Federation has evidence of malicious closures of this kind.
There is another possibility in that it is sometimes found convenient to stop traffic or make traffic one-way traffic in such a way as to destroy a through route.
It would be very helpful if the Minister could give a reassurance that this is not the intention of Clause 25 of the Bill,

that it will not be permitted for the Clause to be used in that way, and that if there is any doubt about the application of the Clause, consultation with the vehicle users could be put into effect to relieve it.
I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able either to accept the new Clause or to explain convincingly that its purpose can be achieved in another way.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I support the Clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger). As I said during the debate on the last Clause, Section 1(d) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act, 1967, is important to the motor cycle riders and their union centres, and I hope very much that the Minister will be able to clear this matter up and make it clear beyond peradventure that these very responsible organisations should be consulted when there are inquiries about the closure of roads.

Mr. Skeffington: I think I can again reassure the hon. Gentleman in the matter which is causing concern to him and those for whom he speaks.
If I may very cautiously say so, and without in any way wishing to interfere in the workings of the organisations for which he speaks, I think that if they were able to consult someone who specialises in this matter they might realise that their fears are groundless because these matters are covered by legislation.
The fact is that there has to be consultation before these orders can be made. The latest enactments in this connection are the Road Traffic Regulation (Procedure) (England and Wales) Orders, 1968, which were, I think, only issued in January, although there have been earlier Regulations.
If the hon. Gentleman looks at Regulation 5 of these Regulations he will see this
Before making an Order, a local authority shall—
(a) consult with the chief officer of police of the police area in which are situated the roads to which the proposed Order relates and with such representative organisations as they think fit,
This is mandatory, and there is a similar provision which I think relates to bridges, and which might be just as relevant, in Regulation 21.
There is, of course, a further power in Section 4 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 whereby the appropriate Minister—the Minister of Transport, the Secretary of State for Wales or the Secretary of State for Scotland—can lay down the procedure to be followed by local authorities making these Orders. So there is a clear duty to consult representative organisations. These powers will bite only as far as is laid down in Clause 25 (2), which refers to the making of Orders under the Road Traffic Regulation Act, 1967, including
… the purpose of conserving or enhancing the natural beauty of the area, or of affording better opportunities for the public to enjoy the area for recreation or the study of nature.
It is possible to use the powers for particular forms of transport, but only as far as that subsection provides. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the Clause, since the matter is covered elsewhere.

Mr. Iremonger: I think that the House is grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for his exegesis of this baffling and complex traffic legislation, which I am sure will be studied with benefit in the relevant quarters. I hope that they will take his speech as an open invitation to seek his guidance, and that he will be able to help them if they are not clear. Perhaps this might be pursued further on another occasion. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1.

GENERAL FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 8, leave out 'National Parks and'.
The Amendment reverses the Committee's first decision, in which, although I had the support of the hon. Members for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine) and Westmorland (Mr. Jopling), I still failed by one vote to carry the Committee. I did not have the vote of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), as he said that he had a National Park in his constituency.
The issue is whether the Commission should be called the National Parks and Countryside Commission or simply the

Countryside Commission. I would not seek, on a matter like this, to reverse a decision of the Committee freely arrived at—I almost said, "too freely arrived at"—unless I thought that there were good reasons for doing so. One important factor is that, through ignorance, I could not then tell the Committee accurately what were the Commission's own views. I do not say that they would necessarily be decisive, but they are important, and the House will want to give them due weight.
I came fresh to the Bill and started with no prejudices one way or the other. I think that it is an advantage to name a body of this kind with a title which is at once clear and an accurate description of its work. By those tests, there is no doubt that the advantages lie with the shorter title, the Countryside Commission. I realise that those who fought for years to get the original 1949 Act on the Statute Book and then made great efforts to make it a reality have an understandable attachment to the original title of the National Parks Commission. The emphasis at that time was on the National Parks themselves. They were the first great achievement in that sphere, and the Commission looked after questions of access to the countryside and so on.
The fact that we have entitled this the Countryside Bill and are proposing to establish the Countryside Commission is indicative of what we believe to be a real widening in the scope of the Commission. In future the Commission will be closely concerned with the activities of almost every local authority in the country, and that applies to urban as well as rural authorities, since urban authorities will, in a sense, provide the customers.
I must, therefore, advise the House that it would be misleading and confusing to people if the words "National Parks" appeared at the beginning of the title of the Commission, because a great many authorities will not be concerned with the National Parks activities of the Commission. They will be concerned with its many other functions: the advice and guidance the Commission can give them, the advice which the Commission will be giving to the Minister about questions of grant for these authorities and with countryside problems involved in the provision of picnic sites, camping sites and so on under the Bill.
For the purpose of publicising its activities, the Commission would not easily get the message across to the countryside if it had to do everything under the longer title. The words which would stick would be "National Parks", and I predict that if we retained the longer title, it would continue to be called "The National Parks Commission", particularly since it is a mouthful to say "The National Parks and Countryside Commission". For practical and commonsense reasons, the advantage lies with the shorter title.
I appreciate that some of those who are rightly passionately concerned for the interests of the National Parks feel that this change of title will mean a down grading of status of the National Parks. While I hope that I can understand their fears, I suggest that they are wholly unfounded aid that the change of title will not in any way reduce the parks' significance or importance. The National Parks will continue to be known as the National Parks. The planning committees and boards which are responsible for them will continue to bear the full title of their National Parks. These arguments point to the desirability of the shorter title.
As to the views of the Commission, some time ago the National Parks Commission hoped to retain that title. I was given to understand that there had been some shift of opinion and that, as a result of the representations made on behalf of the Minister, the Commission had come to accept—I did not know how enthusiastically or reluctantly—the shorter title; and that was the way I informed the Committee in this matter. But other views were expressed. For example, the right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) said:
My information—admittedly not directly from the Commission, the Chairman or any member of it—is that the Commission have become convinced that there is nothing they can do that will move the Government any further, and that is why they have accepted this situation ".—OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 28th November, 1967; c. 36.]
That was said shortly before the Committee reached its decision. I was not then in a position to lay the true views of the Commission before the Committee. That decision was taken on 28th November.
I received a letter from the Chairman of the Commission, Lady Wootton, dated 29th November, 1967, which I will read:
I understand that yesterday the Standing Committee carried an Amendment to change the title of the Countryside Bill to National Parks and the Countryside.
The Commission ask me to let you know that since they endorsed their predecessors' views on this last year they have reconsidered the matter on more than one occasion when various views have been expressed. There is, however, now strong support in the Commission for the shorter title as being both better for publicity purposes and a more accurate description for the Commission's new responsibilities. They hope, therefore, that at a later stage it may be possible to reverse the Standing Committee's decision of yesterday.
That is a very clear expression of views. The reasons given are the reason I urge on the House and which leads me to ask the House to reverse the decision taken by the Standing Committee.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Channon: The Minister of State has persuasively suggested that we should reverse the decision taken at the first sitting of the Committee when, by 10 votes to nine, it was decided to call the Commission the National Parks and Countryside Commission. At that time I too was on the losing side. It is therefore not surprising that I welcome the Government decision, although I am never happy when Governments reverse Standing Committee decisions in this way.
It has always seemed to me that the Commission is to have much wider powers than the National Parks Commission. The whole countryside will be its remit. If it were to have a longer title, I would prefer the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers), to call it the Coast and Countryside Commission, but I expect that it is too late to put that forward now with any chance of its being accepted. The title, "Countryside Commission" is more accurate and I understand that it now has overwhelming support in the Commission itself. The House should have very strong reasons before deciding to overrule the Commission. Of course, what the Commission decides on is not final, but we would have to have very strong reasons for disagreeing with the Commission.
I have some reluctance in asking my hon. Friends not to support the decision of the Standing Committee, but I hope they will agree that it would be wiser to have the name, "Countryside Commission". This will meet with approval from those who have to work the Commission and to carry out the tremendous transformation of the Commission which will have to take place when the Bill becomes law. Therefore, speaking personally, I do not wish to oppose the Government Amendment. This is not very surprising since it is the view I took in Committee. I hope that my hon. Friends who took a different view may now feel that it is not a matter worth pursuing in view of the so clear expression of the views of the Commission and now that we know a great deal more about the Bill than we did in November and have had an opportunity to study the effects.
I hope that some of my hon. Friends will not wish to pursue the old idea of the National Parks and Countryside Commission. I do not pretend that there is a great deal in the argument or that it would be disastrous if the other decision were taken. I think the difference would be marginal and the Commission would function perfectly adequately if it were called the National Parks and Countryside Commission or the Coast and Countryside Commission, but I think the title now suggested is the appropriate one. I hope that it will not be felt at this stage when we have had so much agreement about the general principles of the Bill, that it is necessary to divide the House on this matter.

Mr. Carol Johnson: I hope my right hon. Friend will not think it churlish of me if, after the very reasonable way in which he moved this Amendment, I suggest that the attempt to reverse the decision of the Standing Committee will be met with substantial and profound regret in many quarters outside the House. The matter was fully ventilated in the Standing Committee. It is a matter of judgment, but it seems to me that it is not sufficient to reverse the decision of the Standing Committee merely because of a letter from the Chairman of the National Parks Commission.
I am not sure that the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) is quite

right when he says that that betokens overwhelming support for using the title "Countryside Commission". What the lady said in her letter was:
There is now strong support…
There is a substantial difference between strong support and overwhelming support.

Mr. Channon: I was not basing my remarks particularly on that letter. It is my impression that there is now overwhelming support for the title "Countryside Commission".

Mr. Johnson: My information is that there was a difference of view within the Commission. The expression of view may well represent the majority decision, but it is certainly not a unanimous decision. In those circumstances, one is entitled to ask what are the views of a large number of other bodies and associations which are intimately connected with the work of the Commission, whether it is the Countryside Commission or the National Parks Commission. I was very surprised to find the enthusiasm that was accorded to the decision of the Standing Committee to continue the use of "National Parks" in the title of the new Commission.
As my right hon. Friend has referred to a letter from the Chairman of the Commission, perhaps I may refer to a number of organisations to whose opinions I am sure we would all wish to pay some respect. First, there is the Sheffield and Peak District Branch of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England which states in a letter:
At a meeting of the Executive Committee of this Branch of the C.P.R.E. last night I was instructed to thank you for supporting the successful amendment to the Countryside Bill introducing the words 'National Parks' into the title of the new Commission. There is very wide support throughout the National Parks and among the informed public fir this amendment …
The letter goes on to say:
We would like to stress the importance of encouraging this loyalty and dedication, especially among those who are locally responsible for administration of National Parks and to whom the removal of the words 'National Parks' from the title of the Commission will be an indication that National Parks have less significance than previously.
Then we have the Friends of the Lake District who write:
We were pleased to hear that 'National Parks' had been added to the title of the Commission and we sincerely hope that this will not be altered at the report stage.


I have a letter from the British Mountaineering Council and one from the Cyclists' Touring Club. The letter from the Cyclists' Touring Club says:
There is really no need for me to tell you how much sentiment is attached to the term ' National Parks ', especially by those who fought so hard for the establishment of National Parks prior to the 1949 Act, and we think it would be a tragedy if the title were submerged, with the possibility that—in the course of time—the distinction between these areas and other parts of the countryside would lose its significance.
Lastly I have a letter from a nominated member of the National Parks Snowdonia Committees, to which some respect ought to be paid and which, after making reference to the decision of the Standing Committee, says:
I do trust that the House will endorse this title which stands as the last defence for the natural beauty and the wilder areas of England and Wales, and of the Government pledge that these should be maintained.
Therefore, it is important to many people that we should retain in the title of the Commission some reference to the National Parks. My right hon. Friend in moving the Amendment admitted that it is a matter of judgment. He advanced arguments why we should reverse the decision of the Standing Committee. I am not persuaded, and I think there are equally strong arguments on the other side for standing by the decision of the Standing Committee.

Dame Joan Vickers: I am one of those who voted for the inclusion of "National Parks". In asking leave to withdraw my Amendment in Committee, I said:
We know that often on Report the Government put the Whips on and change the decisions of the Committee.
I do not know whether the Whips are on tonight, but the Government are changing that decision of the Committee. [An HON. MEMBER: "They are."] So I was right on that occasion. I withdrew my Amendment and left it open to table another. Unfortunately, I was overseas at a W.E.U. meeting and did not return in time to do so and the Government had not tabled their Amendments before I left.
In Committee the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said this:
Indeed, if the Committee had the opportunity of reflection, they might have felt it better to add 'coasts' than to add 'National

Parks', which are already amply provided for."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A; 28th November, 1967, c. 46–52.]
I think that "coasts" would stick in the public's mind. Would the Minister of State consider recommending, as the title of the Commission is being changed, changing its title again to "Countryside and Coast Commission" or to "Coast and Countryside Commission"? That would emphasise the two aspects—countryside and coasts—which we are very anxious should be borne in mind, particularly as this is an island.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are discussing one Amendment and not another one.

Dame Joan Vickers: I should be grateful if that point could be borne in mind.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Even at this late hour of the morning I do not apologise for speaking briefly on this subject, because I think that it has real importance. It is not just a question of a rather romantic yearning after an old title. It is not merely the fact that many of us were concerned in the battle for National Parks and are sorry to see those words deleted from the title of the new Commission. The importance arises for practical reasons—the sorts of reasons on which my hon. and learned Friend argued the case for the Amendment.
The Commission will do two jobs. It will have responsibility for implementing the Bill, which we all welcome. It is properly called "Countryside Bill", because it is concerned with a whole range of countryside problems and provides facilities for recreation. It is also concerned with the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act. A title which makes clear the functions and responsibilities of the new Commission should include both "Countryside" and "National Parks".
This Commission is distinctive from the Commission operating in Scotland, for the very good reason that in Scotland there are no National Parks. That is why we give it a different title in England and Wales from that in Scotland. Thirdly, and perhaps most important, we want to retain "National Parks" in the title because it has an international significance. I have on many occasions had the opportunity of meeting those concerned with National Parks and their development in


many parts of the world. "National Parks" is a title which is clearly understood internationally, whereas "Countryside" is not. It would be a great pity, for all these reasons, if we lose "National Parks" from the title of the Commission. There is a justified suspicion that this means that the Commission as at present constituted will not have the same interest inin the wilder areas of the countryside which are comprised within our National Parks as was the original intention.
I deeply regret the proposed Amendment, and I regret it for highly practical reasons, not for the reasons of romanticism and yearning for the past which my hon. and learned Friend suggested.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Jopling: I have held strong views on this matter ever since Second Reading. The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) said that, to be comprehensive, the name must be National Parks and Countryside Commission. With respect, if it is to be comprehensive, it should be the National Parks, Country Parks and Countryside Commission. That would cover the whole range.

Mr. Speaker: Order. One Amendment is enough to discuss at this moment.

Mr. Jopling: I take the point, Mr. Speaker. I dislike the name National Park very much. Although I love the places themselves, I hate the name. The people who live in National Park areas find that a good many of the visitors who come are not able to distinguish between the rights of private property in an urban park and in a National Park. I shall not weary the House with examples of what I mean. There is great confusion about it.
I welcome the Amendment and shall support it, as I did in Committee. I hope that it is the first step in getting rid of the name National Park altogether. We are removing it from the title of the Commission at this stage. I hope that the next stage will be to think of a better name for the National Parks themselves.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: I deplore the decision to reverse the decision which was taken in the Standing Committee. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State made a great deal of the letter

which he received from the new chairman of the National Parks Commission. I remind him that the previous chairman wrote a letter to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Land and Natural Resources. It was dated 4th May, 1966:
The National Parks Commission think that the title proposed for the new Commission calls for reconsideration. The idea of National Parks is given statutory expression in the Act of 1949 and in the title of the present Commission. The expression 'National Park' has become part of the national consciousness, and around it there has grown a strong and widespread feeling of loyalty and dedication; this correctly reflects its international significance. The National Park Authorities have now achieved a sense of planning purpose which can stand comparison with that for any part of the country. This is giving a new momentum to the creative ideals of the 1949 Act. That the British National Park system has much to offer other long settled and densely populated countries in techniques of administration and management is shown by the recent award by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to the Peak Park Planning Board of the first European Diploma for protected landscapes.
It is important therefore that the name National Parks' should not be withdrawn from public notice, or that any impression should be given that the cause of National Parks will be allowed to go by default. The National Parks Commission have therefore strongly advised that the name to be given to the new Commission should be the 'National Parks and Countryside Commission'. This proposal was made by the National Parks Commission to the Minister of Land and Natural Resources when he recently visited one of their meetings.
That letter was written by Lord Strang. Now, my hon. and learned Friend tells us that the new Chairman has written in other terms. Why should we give greater cognisance to the views of the new Chairman, which we know are not the majority views of the existing Commission? As there are undoubtedly mixed views on this as between the old and the new Commission, the Committee should be entitled to make up its mind on the matter. It voted for the inclusion of the words "The National Park", and they should be allowed to stand.
It has been suggested that the title should be accurately descriptive of the functions of the body. If we include the words "National Parks" that would be the case, for the Commission still has responsibility for National Parks, which cover about 10 per cent. of England and Wales. Therefore, it is only appropriate that the words should be included. It is


also said that we should introduce a degree of precision into the title, but the new title accepted by the Committee is precise. I do not see that "National Parks and Countryside Commission" is in any way too long.
I suggest a compromise. My hon. and learned Friend suggests that we should not put the words "National Parks" to the forefront. Will he therefore accept n Amendment which could be moved in another place—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That Amendment may be taken in another place—not now.

Mr. Jackson: My suggested compromise is that perhaps my hon. and Learned Friend might consider introducing a revision—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman apparently did not understand what I said. We are discussing Amendment No. 1. He cannot make a further Amendment to it.

Mr. Jackson: May I ask, in conclusion, if my hon. and learned Friend would be any more sympathetic to a different formulation, namely, "The Countryside and National Parks Commission"?

Mr. MacDermot: With the leave of the House, perhaps I may speak again out of respect to my hon. Friends who have voiced their strong feelings on the matter. There is little I can add to what I said in opening, for I think that I anticipated most of the arguments.
I should say to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson) that all the persons and bodies from whose letters he quoted are closely associated and connected with the National Parks. I fully understand their feelings in the matter, and do not seek to minimise them. But I do not think that that detracts from my arguments.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) argues on practical grounds that the preference should be for the longer title. I cannot see why. The shorter title is comprehensive and includes the whole range of the Commission's activities. One does not want to produce a dichotomy between its responsibilities for National Parks and for other parts of the countryside. The

National Parks form a vital part of the countryside and the work of what I suggest should be called the Countryside Commission.
My hon. Friend said that the term "National Parks" had an international significance. But like many other terms with an international significance it is the source of much international confusion, I suspect. All may clearly understand the term, but I am sure that they all clearly understand it in a different sense. I do not believe that any other country uses it in the same sense as we do, a point which I think that the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) has in mind when he argues that he would like to see the term disappear. I do not agree. I do not want it to disappear, and I want it retained for our National Parks and our National Parks authorities. But I do not feel that the international argument is very strong, because there is no doubt a very different meaning here from that in America, for example.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Over the whole continent of Europe "National Parks" means precisely the same as in this country, and even in America one should not exaggerate the differences. I know them very well.

Mr. MacDermot: Perhaps we can agree to differ on that. In any event, I do not feel that in a matter of this kind the international usefulness of the term should be a determining factor.
In answer to the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) I must correct his impression. He suggested that the letter I read expressed the personal view of Lady Wootton, the present Chairman. That is not correct. She was writing—and she made this clear in the letter—on behalf of the Commission. She wrote:
The Commission asked me to let you know
and was expressing the considered and reconsidered view of the Commission. It is significant that the Commission have altered their view. I can assure the House that this is a fact, because I recently visited the Commission. They took this up and expressed the hope that the House would reverse this decision.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Channon: I beg to move Amendment No. 105, in page 1, line 14 leave out 'open air'.
I do not intend, at this late hour, to speak at length on this Amendment. During the Committee stage we discussed, on 30th November, as is shown in columns 83 and 84 of the Official Report of Standing Committee A, the definition of "open-air recreation". I thought it was then the general impression in the Standing Committee that the present definition in the 1949 Act was "now unduly restrictive" and I quote the Minister of State in column 85. It was therefore my understanding that some Amendment was likely from the Government at this stage. If such an Amendment has come forward in a different way, I apologise for having missed it. I was not able to find such an Amendment and therefore put this down in the hope of drawing from the Government a statement of their intention. We have all discussed on previous stages of the Bill what should be in the country parks. There are many different kinds of country park, and as was said in Standing Committee, it would be wrong to stop all organised games in all country parks. My understanding was that the present definition of "recreation" might have that effect.
The Minister agreed to look at this and see whether the definition could be altered to meet the point. It would be helpful to have information about the Government's attitude. Some amendment is required.

Mr. MacDermot: I think the hon. Gentleman has overlooked the effect of Clause 16(3) which we added to the Bill in Standing Committee. We have already done what he wants us to do and what I undertook to do to meet the point about the definition of "open-air recreation" in the 1949 Act, excluding organised games. We recognise that it would be unduly restrictive when we wanted country parks to include some provision for organised games. Clause 16(3) confines the definition to Part V of the 1949 Act dealing with access orders to the countryside. In that case

it is right to retain the definition. For all other purposes the exclusion of organised games is removed.

1.0 a.m.

Mr. Channon: I take it, therefore, that the ordinary definition of "open-air recreation" would include organised games. With that explanation I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move, Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 17, at end to insert—
(6) In Part III of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957 (which specifies offices the holders of which are disqualified under that Act) as it applies to the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, there shall be inserted at the appropriate point in alphabetical order the entry "Any member of the Countryside Commission in receipt of remuneration".

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we can take Amendment No. 79, in page 38, line 7, Clause 40, at end insert—
(4) The provisions of this Act amending or repealing any provision of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957 extend to Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Amendment No. 81, in page 38, line 10, Clause 40, after "and", insert:
subject to subsection (4) above".
and Amendment No. 90, in page 46, line 49, Schedule 4, at end insert—

5 &amp; 6 Eliz. 2. c. 20.
The House of Commons Disqualification Act1957.
In Part III of Schedule 1 the words' Chairman or Deputy Chairman of the National Parks Commission'.

Mr. MacDermot: These Amendments are to give effect to an undertaking I gave in Standing Committee. We had some discussion about whether hon. Members should be excluded from service on the Commission in any event or merely excluded if they were to receive any remuneration for their services. The Committee came to the conclusion, which I accept, that hon. Members should be able to serve on the Commission provided they did not receive remuneration. That is the effect of the Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3.

EXPERIMENTAL PROJECTS OR SCHEMES.

Mr. Channon: I beg to move Amendment No. 98, in page 4, line 12, at end to insert—
(3) Before approving any proposals made to him under the provisions of subsection 1 of this section the Minister shall

(a) publish, in such manner as he thinks appropriate, notice that proposals have been made to him, and of the place where copies of the proposals may be obtained; and
(b) have regard to any representations received by him regarding the proposals; and the Minister shall not approve the proposals or any of them before the expiry of a period of three months from the date of publication of the said notice or from the date upon which copies of the proposals are made publicly available, whichever date shall be later.
Since the Committee stage, it has been drawn to my attention by people seriously concerned that the effects of Clause 3 are much wider than perhaps we have generally appreciated. In Committee, we had an explanation that the Clause empowers the Commission to deal with experimental projects, but subsection (3) has extremely wide terms which, for example, would allow the Commission, with the approval of the Minister, to set up or carry on through an agent any business or any undertaking whatever.
It has been represented to me by, among others, the C.B.I., that the Minister should at least publicise any projects before he gives his approval. It is suggested that he should publish a notice that proposals have been made to him and let people know where it is possible to get copies of such proposals. It has been put to me that such proposals could be damaging to people concerned and that he should not confirm them until a period of three months has expired from the date of publication. It would then be possible for those concerned to make representations if they felt that they would be badly affected by an experimental project the Commission wished to undertake.
Subsection (3) would allow the Commission to acquire or manage land, erect buildings, hire out works or equipment and to set up a business either directly or through an agent.
These are extremely wide powers, and it is not unreasonable to suggest that there should be some safeguard. We

want to encourage the Commission to get on with its work and any unnecessary delay is to be deplored. I am not wedded to the figure of three months in the Amendment, but there is a case for publishing a notice that such proposals have been made, and for having some delay for approving these proposals in order that representations can be made to the Minister, so that he can consider them before coming to a final decision. I hope that if the Government cannot accept the exact terms of the Amendment, they will look at the points raised by it and consider publishing the proposals, so that people know what is going on. There is a real point here, and something ought to be written into the Bill, possibly in another place, to meet this point, in this or some other way.

Mr. Skeffington: I sometimes refer to the odd Amendments which have been moved from the other side, particularly in Committee, as doctrinal, but there are other categories, one of which is the "grandmother" Amendment, of which this is one. I am very surprised that there is any alarm about the purposes of this Clause. It is true that there are a number of things which the Commission could undertake by way of experiment, but it is governed strictly by subsection (1) of Clause 3 which says that these experimental schemes must be designed to facilitate the enjoyment of the countryside, or to conserve or enhance its natural beauty or amenity. It goes on to specify schemes.
This is not a whole range of activities in which the Commission might like to engage in a gay mood. It has severe restrictions. If there were to be a compulsory purchase order—and we have given constant assurances that this would be very unlikely indeed—there would have to be all the normal consultations and public inquiries. This seems to be an excessive requirement. These schemes have to be submitted to the Minister for approval, in part or in whole. The Commission is required to consult with other bodies, who appear to have an interest. We could be so long in doing all these things that the Commission might get tired before starting. I know I am exaggerating, but it is not necessary to add another provision. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that he does not wish to


press the Amendment, since I have drawn his attention to the limitation of the powers.

Mr. Channon: The hon. Member is exaggerating the extent of the difficulties to which the Commission will be subject. He is right in saying that there are some limitations in the Clause. There is a case for such a proposal, but it is not a matter that I want to pursue at any great length now. I give notice that I am sure there will be some of my noble Friends in another place who will wish to raise it. At the moment I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, Amendment No. 4, in page 4, line 45 leave out
'or in connection with'.

Mr. Speaker: It would be convenient to discuss with this, Amendment Nos. 5, 21 and 22.

Mr. Skeffington: The removal of these words would make the subsection read that the powers to be exercised by the Commission or local authority in connection with Clause 3 or Clause 6 should now be:
(a) on land belonging to them, or
(b) on such terms as may be agreed with the owners and any other persons whose authority is required for the purpose.
The reason why the words "or in connection with" have been taken out is because it has been suggested that in the case of a harbour authority those words might be imposing a power which would not be desired either by the Government or the authority. Therefore, we have removed those words.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 5, in page 5, line 3, leave out 'or in connection with'.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

Clause 5.

NEW POWERS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES.

Amendments made: No. 11, in page 5, line 39, after 'this', insert:
'section (Country parks: sailing, boating, bathing and fishing)'.

No. 12, in page 6, line 3, after 'this', insert:

'section (Country parks: sailing, boating, bathing and fishing)'.

No. 13, in line 15, at end insert:
'section (Country parks: sailing, boating, bathing and fishing) and'.—[Mrs. White.]

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: I beg to move, Amendment No. 14, in page 6, line 22, after 'shall', insert:
'first seek the consent of the "National Parks and Countryside Commission and" '.
All right hon. and hon. Members will recognise and freely acknowledge that country parks should meet the needs of the wider community. I should like to cite the example of Clumber Park, Nottinghamshire, which covers an area of 3,784 acres and has a high usage. The information that I have from the National Trust land agent is that during the Bank Holiday of Easter, 1964, 106,740 people visited Clumber Park. Obviously my assertion that people came from a large radius to visit this park would not be contested. No questions were asked of the people who visited the park, but it is estimated that the average range of persons travelling there was between 20 and 30 miles.
The fact that the larger country parks serve the needs of a region is widely recognised, but there is some fear that the powers to set up country parks should not be restricted to county district authorities. Therefore, in Standing Committee, I put down an Amendment to exclude county district and urban district authorities from exercising powers concerning the setting up of such parks. In reply to the Amendment my hon. Friend assured me that the degree of co-ordination which I and other hon. Members sought would be taken care of by the fact that country district and urban district authorities would require planning permission. In other words, the county authority would provide a degree of coordination.
My hon. Friend also said:
The Commission themselves, of course, are again bound to rationalise and bring their influence to bear with the county council and with the planning authorities, and this is one of the reasons we have the Commission."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A; Tuesday, 28th November, 1967, c. 349.]
My Amendment seeks to require that any planning authority, be it a county planning authority, the urban district or the rural district, will first seek the consent of the Countryside Commission


before going ahead with introducing a country park. I understand that this will not overlap the machinery of the Countryside Commission. I am told on good authority that it is reckoned that there will be no more than a hundred country parks set up, and it is not unreasonable to expect the Countryside Commission to scrutinise that number of applications. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will accept the terms of my Amendment.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. MacDermot: What my hon. Friend seeks will be realised under the Bill as it stands. An Amendment of this character is not needed. Before embarking on the substantial capital expenditure involved in providing a country park, local authorities are bound to seek grant aid. My hon. Friend will remember from the provisions of Clause 29 that the Commission will have a vital rôle to play in determining to whom grant shall be payable. The Minister will have to seek its advice and will not be able to disregard it without entering into consultations with it. The effect is that authorities proposing to provide country parks will get in touch with the Commission and discuss their proposals with it at the earliest stage, because they will not want to waste time, money and staff effort on projects which are not likely to obtain support. That is the way in which the co-ordinating rôle of which I spoke in Committee will be achieved in practice.
Apart from that, in the case about which I know my hon. Friend is concerned, which is the power of county district councils to set up country parks, under the provisions of Clause 5 they will need to obtain the consent of the county council of the area, which will be the local planning authority, before being able to establish a country park. In the rare event of such an authority wanting, to set up a country park and not requiring grant aid, it would not be right to insist on its obtaining the consent of the Commission. But, as I have said, that is an unlikely eventuality.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: In view of the terms of my hon. and learned Friend's reply, to beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Channon: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 6, line 34, column 2, at beginning insert 'Where planning permission is required'.
This deals with the position of rural district councils, about which we had some discussion in Committee. A number of hon. Members argued that it was unreasonable to have a provision in the Bill whereby councils of county districts should have to obtain the consent of the county council before they could exercise any powers in acquiring land for the purposes of a country park.
We had a long discussion, towards the end of which I proposed a compromise solution. It was indicated by the Minister of State that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, it would be necessary for a rural district council, in any case, to have planning permission for any such proposal, in which case there would be control in any event. I suggested that, where planning permission was required, consent should not be necessary under the Bill, but that on the rare occasions where there was no need for planning permission, the district council would have to obtain the county council's consent. During the debate the Minister of State said that there were 1,500 authorities which would bombard the Com mission with applications. I have checked the figures since then, and I do not think there is anything like that number. There are 58 county councils, 83 county boroughs, 259 non-county boroughs, 470 rural districts, and 524 urban districts. I think that the number of urban districts with sufficient countryside in which to provide country parks must be very small.
The Minister of State said at Newcastle last September that country parks were likely to be situated in the green belt areas outside conurbations to syphon off the pressure on favoured areas such as Box Hill. Of the rural districts, some will be unlikely to provide parks because they are too near to towns, or have no suitable places. Others will be in National Parks, and more than 100 are maritime anyway, so the need is unlikely to arise because of the availability of beaches. It is unlikely that 1,500 authorities will rush to provide parks. About 150 might consider it, and it seems unlikely that they would all wish to do so. at any rate within a short period of time.
It is unlikely that the administrative machine will be choked by a glut of applications, and I wonder whether it is possible to adopt a compromise solution along the lines I suggested in Committee, and which is reported in column 374. This seems a commonsense solution to the strong case which the rural district councils put forward, but which the Government were not prepared to accept at that stage. Perhaps the Minister will consider the compromise solution then suggested, and which I have tried to incorporate in the Amendment. If he is able to do anything to help the rural district councils, and to meet the point they have raised, even in this small way, I am sure that it will be appreciated.

Mr. MacDermot: I do not feel that I can advise the House to accept the Amendment, because I think that the basis on which it has been put forward is misconceived. The effect of the Amendment would be to relieve a county district council of the need to obtain the consent of the county council, except where it required planning permission. I repeat that I think that in almost every case the council of a county district will need to obtain planning permission for a country park project, because it is likely that it will normally involve some development for which it will need such permission. However, there could be cases in which a county district could set up a park without planning permission, establish it, and then later seek planning permission for the development that it wants to do.
The real point is that the consent provision in Clause 5 is directed to matters other than planning permission. As has been made clear throughout, starting from our White Paper, our intention is that country parks should serve more than local needs. It is for this reason that we think the prime agency in their provision should be the county councils. We have not made an absolute bar, as some have suggested we should, on their creation by subordinate authorities, but we think there must be some form of general strategic oversight if confusion and delay are not to occur, and, above all, if wasteful over-provision is to be avoided.
If we were to leave consultation and consent until the stage of planning permission, I think that we would be inviting the wasteful deployment of scarce resources, which we want to avoid, and schemes which may prove to be too parochial in concept, or which duplicate or overlap others which were designed to cater for the same catchment area. It is for this reason, to get proper coordination and planning of the provision of country parks over a wide area, that we think it right to provide for this consent by the county councils. This is not intended as a derogation of the district councils. We think it right to place the main responsibility on the larger authority. Provided they obtain this consent they will, of course, be empowered to set up country parks, and if they think that consent has been unreasonably withheld they have power under the Clause to appeal to the Minister.

Mr. Channon: I am sorry the Minister of State is not prepared to look at the Amendment I put forward because I did think it presented a compromise which might be acceptable to the House.
In view of his attitude, however, I do not think I wish to press the Amendment at this stage, and therefore I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mrs. White: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 7, line 18, at end insert:

Any local authority
If all or any part of the land is in a parish, inform the parish council or, in the case of a parish not having a parish council, the chairman of the parish meeting.

This Amendment is in fulfilment of an undertaking given to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden). I do not think I need elaborate on it. It simply gives parish councils, or if there is no parish council, the chairman of the parish meeting, the right to be informed of projects for country parks.

I think this will be welcome to the Parish Councils Association and, I trust, also to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6.

POWER TO PROVIDE COUNTRY PARKS.

Further Amendments made: No. 17, in page 8, leave out lines 10 to 12.

No. 19, in line 13, leave out subsection (3).

No. 20, in line 21, after 'section', insert 'and section (Country parks: sailing, boating, bathing and fishing)'.

No. 21, in line 22, leave out 'or in connection with'.

No. 22, in line 25, leave out 'or in connection with'.

No. 23, in line 33, after 'section', insert 'and section (Country parks: sailing, boating, bathing and fishing)'.—[Mrs. White.]

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 9, line 2, at end insert:
(7) If it appears to a local authority that land provided or acquired by them before the coming into force of this section, as open country to be used for the purposes of Part V of the Act of 1949, can suitably be used as o country park, that land, or any part of it, shall, from such date as the local authority may determine, be treated for all the purposes of this Act as a country park provided under this section; and, if the land was acquired under section 76 of the Act of 1949 (compulsory acquisition for public access), the land so treated shall cease to be subject to that section, but—

(a) this subsection shall not affect any trust, covenant or other restriction to which the land is subject; and
(b) no grant shall be payable under this Act in respect of expenditure incurred before the date so determined.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest it would be for the convenience of the House if we took with this Amendment Amendment No. 95, in page 8, line 35, after "ground" insert:
or land acquired under Part V of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949".
and Amendment No. 97, in page 8, line 38, after "ground", insert:
such land".

Mr. MacDermot: The effect of Amendment No. 24 is to enable local authorities who have acquired areas of open country under Section 76 of the 1949 Act to treat such areas, if suitable for the purpose, as country parks. Having done so they are to be exempted from the provisions of subsection (4) of

Section 76 which lays certain duties on the authorities in relation to management for the purposes of open air recreation.
This Amendment implements an undertaking which I gave in the Standing Committee.

Mr. Channon: I rise to say how grateful we are to the Minister of State for putting down this Amendment. I am sure it will be extremely valuable to some local authorities who have already acquired land which they will be able to use as a country park.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7.

POWERS EXERCISABLE OVER OR NEAR COMMON LAND.

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 25, in page 9, line 19, after "section" insert:
and Schedule (procedure for taking common land) to this Act".

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that with this Amendment we should take Amendment No. 78, and Amendment No. 82, the New Schedule.

Mr. MacDermot: This involves the new Schedule. These Amendments are of some importance and I should explain them to the House.
The purpose and effect of the Amendments is to introduce a power of compulsory acquisition in relation to land other than common land which is in the neighbourhood of common land to which the Clause applies. Secondly, it simplifies and shortens the procedure for obtaining Ministerial authority for taking land out of a common while still preserving all the present safeguards and facilities for making objections. Thirdly, it is to make clear that the power to acquire commonable and other rights in or over common land does not apply to rights vested in statutory undertakers for the purposes of their undertakings.
1.30 a.m.
By subsection (2), local authorities can exercise their Clause 7 powers on other land in the neighbourhood of the common to enable better use to be made


of the common for open-air recreation. This power will sometimes be required where it is impracticable to provide the public facilities on the common land itself. An instance might be vehicular access which constituted a serious road hazard or a car park which might be objectionable on the common or on other planning grounds.
Subsection (2), coupled with their existing powers of acquisition, will enable local authorities to acquire this land by agreement but it may occasionally be necessary for them to purchase such land against the wishes of the owner, so that the existing rights of public access over the neighbouring common may be used to better advantage. We hope that such instances will be rare and the local authority will be allowed to exercise compulsory powers over neighbouring land only if it were shown to be impracticable to put the public facilities on the common itself.
On that understanding, we think it appropriate to give local authorities the necessary powers of compulsion; this is consistent with the other acquisition of land powers over parts of common land to which there are public rights of access.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) mentioned the procedure. The present procedure is complicated and may lead to unnecessary duplication, for instance of public inquiries. This is an attempt to streamline the procedure while ensuring proper safeguards for the individual and rights of objection. Paragraph 2(1) of the new Schedule provides for the local authority to publicise its proposals locally before applying for the Minister's authority. Thus, the Minister will be enabled to take all representations into account before determining the applications. This avoids the drawback of the present procedure, under which he must make a preliminary judgment of the application without the benefit of knowing local reaction.
The discretion to hold a local public inquiry is retained; there is a precedent for this in Section 194 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, and Section 22 of the Commons Act, 1899. Second, where a local authority invokes the compulsory powers to acquire part of a common or

rights over a common, the Amendments would allow the necessary acquisition procedure to run side by side with the procedure for obtaining the Minister's authority under Clause 7. This will involve a combined public notice inviting representations and then, if the Minister decides to hold an inquiry, it can be a single joint inquiry dealing with both the Clause 7 authority and the confirmation of the compulsory purchase order.
These Amendments do not disturb the present need for the Minister, before giving his authority, to be satisfied either that suitable land has been, or will be, given in exchange, or that exchange land is unnecessary; but it removes the need for him to give a preliminary certificate that he is so satisfied.
A local authority will now be required, by subsection (2) of the new Schedule, to serve a copy of its proposals on the parish council or the chairman at the parish council meeting. This meets an Opposition Amendment which was tabled in Committee and which was accepted in principle by the Government. A protection for statutory undertakers appears in paragraph (6) of the new Schedule, and this is intended to remove a possible doubt of construction. This matter was raised in an Opposition Amendment in Committee and we undertook to consider it.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: The hon. and learned Gentleman went in some detail into the Clause and the powers which it gives. We have grave doubts about these powers, although we accept his assurance that only rarely will they be used.
In Committee we argued the whole question of exchange land and whether, in the opinion of the Minister, it would be necessary to replace common land which was taken for a country park. The fact that the present law—I do not blame the present Government for this, any more than former Governments—applying to common land is still in the air and is likely to remain there for a considerable time to come obviously causes some difficulty in this respect.
I note what the hon. and learned Gentleman says about proper warning being given, the need to publish notices and the proper inquiry procedure being


adopted. I also note his remarks about parish councils being warned. As I have said before, my hon. Friends and I do not like the idea of compulsory purchase. No doubt we will have to accept the Minister's assurance that these powers will only occasionally be used. Nevertheless, we have grave doubts about this whole procedure.

Dame Joan Vickers: In Committee I asked if local authorities must consult commoners before erecting anything on their land. On that occasion the Parliamentary Secretary said that he did not think that there was a statutory requirement to consult commoners. He said that he would consider whether or not provision for this should be made and that he would look into the general principle. He thought that normally the authorities would consult, and he promised to seek further advice. Has further advice been taken, and, if so, what is the result?

Mr. MacDermot: I should be in a position to answer that question. I am not. I apologise to the hon. Lady and I will write to her about it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 26, in page 9, line 36, leave out subsections (4) to (11) and insert—

(4) Schedule (procedure for taking common land) to this Act shall have effect for the purposes of this section, and in that Schedule, "the principal section" means this section.

(5) A local authority shall have power to acquire compulsorily any land in the neighbourhood of the common land which is required by them for the purposes of their functions under this section and which is not common land.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Clause 10.

FACILITIES IN OR NEAR NATIONAL PARKS.

Mrs. White: I beg to move Amendment No. 28, in page 13, line 7, at end insert "or in other waters".

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we are taking Amendment No. 29.

Mrs. White: These two Amendments are again in pursuance of an undertaking given in Committee when the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) raised a very sensible point as to why

we had not made provision for works mentioned in the Clause to be constructed, if necessary, in fresh water. The Clause referred particularly to works constructed in the sea. I was advised, and informed the Committee, that from the legal point of view as the Act is to be construed with the Act of 1949, an Amendment was not necessary, but as there was some doubt—I observed that there was no provision for construction in brackish water—we have proposed these words. Now every degree of salinity will be provided for and I hope that these Amendments will meet with approval.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 29, in line 11, after "sea", insert "or other waters".

Clause 11.

AREAS OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST.

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 31, in page 14, line 38, leave out subsection (6).

Mr. Speaker: We can take with this Amendment the following Amendments: No. 32, in line 41, leave out 'without subsection (6)', and No. 30, in line 38, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
(6) Where land subject to an agreement under this section is also subject to an access agreement or order (whether confirmed or made by the Minister before or after the coming into operation of this section) and the Council considers it expedient that further restriction of public access should be imposed in the interest of conserving the flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features, the Minister may, on application by the Council and after consulting the local planning authority, vary the access order or agreement so as to impose as respects the land any such restrictions or further restrictions authorised by section 60(3) of the Act of 1949 as appears to him to be appropriate, or he may exclude the land or any part thereof from the land subject to the access agreement or order or may exclude parts of the land and impose restrictions on other parts thereof.

Mr. Skeffington: The effect of these Amendments, which I know will be welcomed by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson) and others, is that access agreements or orders will be able to be made in respect of areas subject to agreement under Clause 11. This deals with areas of special scientific interest. After my


hon. Friend withdrew his Amendment in Committee, further consideration was given to this matter in which there is a great deal of public interest. The National Environment Research Council came to the view that it would be right to agree to this Amendment although the Council had never envisaged it as applying to large areas. However, there was the threat as the Clause stood that large areas might have been excluded from the making of access orders. We felt that that was wrong. I am sure that the House will be glad to have this Amendment made.

Mr. Carol Johnson: This deals with a very important matter which was the subject of a long discussion in Committee and a debate on an Amendment in identical terms. I am pleased that the arguments I put forward have prevailed and that the Minister has accepted them. I warmly welcome and support the Amendment.

Mr. Jopling: As this was originally proposed by the Lake District Planning Council, I add my thanks to the Government for accepting the proposal.
Since the sittings of the Committee, I have been told that areas of special scientific interest in the Lake District comprise 28,000 acres which are covered by these arrangements, and the proposed Skiddaw Forest would add another 24,500 acres. That is a very large area. The threat has now been removed and I am sure we are all grateful.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 32, in line 41, leave out 'without subsection (6)'.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

Clause 12.

ACCESS TO OPEN COUNTRY: RIVERS, CANALS AND WOODLANDS.

1.45 a.m.

Mrs. White: I beg to move Amendment No. 33, in page 15, line 12, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

(1) The definition of 'open country' in section 59(2) of the Act of 1949 shall include, if in the countryside, any woodlands.

(2) Subject to subsection (6) below, the said definition shall include, if in the countryside—
(a) any river or canal, and

(b) any expanse of water through which a river, or some part of the flow of a river, runs, and
(c) a strip of the adjacent land on both sides of any river or canal, or of any such expanse of water, of reasonable width, and where a highway crosses or comes close to the river, canal or other water, so much of any land connecting the highway with the strip of land as would, if included together with the strip in an access agreement or order, afford access from the highway to some convenient launching place for small boats.

(3) The strip of adjacent land comprised in any access order shall be wide enough to allow passage on foot along the water and wide enough to allow the public to picnic at convenient places and, where practicable, to embark or disembark, and shall include—
(a) the banks, walls or embankment along the water, and
(b) any towpath or other way or track beside the water.

(4) Local planning authorities shall exercise their powers under Part V of the Act of 1949 over any such strip of land with special regard to the interests of persons using small boats who must circumvent obstacles or obstructions on the water by passing round on foot with their boats, and in the interests of persons who wish to obtain access from a highway to convenient launching places for small boats.

(5) In section 60 of the Act of 1949 (rights of public over land subject to an access agreement or order, other than excepted land) subsection (5) (a) (certain agricultural land to be excepted land) shall not apply to any land within subsection (2)(c) above.

(6) Subsections (2) and (3) above shall not apply as respects land held with—
(a) a reservoir owned or managed by statutory water undertakers,
(b) a reservoir owned or managed by a river authority, or
(c) a canal, or part of a canal, owned or managed by the British Waterways Board.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we can take Amendments Nos. 34, 35 and 36.

Mrs. White: These Amendments arise out of the discussion that we had in Committee about the position of canoeists, and are particularly directed towards the pledges given to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson) when he put forward a plea for better arrangements to be made in the interests of canoeists.
We have endeavoured to do this in two particular directions: One is to include within the ambit of these provisions of Clause 12
any expanse of water through which a river, or some part of the flow of a river, runs …


This, I understand, would be particularly helpful to canoeists, We also include in the definitions in Clause 12 a strip of the land adjacent to any canal or river, or of any such expanses of water, and we provide that this should be of reasonable width,
and where a highway crosses or comes close to the river, canal or other water, so much of any land connecting the highway with the strip of land as would, if included together with the strip in an access agreement or order, afford access from the highway to some convenient launching place for small boats.
I would not wish to weary the House with the other provisions of the Amendment, but they are all consequential on our endeavour to meet the needs and wishes of canoeists. We have included references to reservoirs owned or managed by statutory water undertakers or by river authorities, or canals owned or managed by the British Waterways Board. Reservations have been made in respect of all these authorities. Otherwise, I think we have gone a long way to meet the needs of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Carol Johnson: At this late hour I do not think I need do more than welcome warmly this Amendment and say how indebted I am, as are canoeists generally, to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Welsh Office for having carefully noted the points that were raised in Standing Committee and for having sought to deal with them in the Amendment.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: The hon. Lady, in moving the Amendment, spoke a good deal about the canoeists who have an important interest in our rivers. She did not say anything about the fishermen who have an equally important interest. I wonder if she would like to say something about them and explain how the fishermen will be affected by these Amendments, and if not, how not.

Mr. Ramsden: I received a letter from my local angling club expressing apprehension on this point. The interests of fishermen were raised in Committee in the same context as those of canoeists, and, so far as I recollect, the Government undertook to consider how to solve the problem of reconciling what appear at fiat sight to be two possibly conflicting interests. I am sure that many people would be interested to hear the hon. Lady's reply.

Mrs. White: We are only too well aware that there may be a conflict of interest in these matters. On the other hand, the efforts we have made to meet the interests of canoeists ought not to make life any more difficult for fishermen. I do not see that fishermen can object to canoeists being allowed to launch their canoes or to carry their canoes round obstacles. We had some discussion on this question in Committee. As with many other provisions in the Bill, what will determine the matter is good sense and tolerance on both sides. There are circumstances in which there are apt to be conflicts of interest and of enjoyment and we cannot legislate for all of them. We think that the provisions made in the Amendments are not unreasonable in the interests of canoeists. We trust canoeists to be considerate where the interests of fishermen are concerned, and we trust fishermen not to be selfish where the interests of canoeists are affected.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 34, in page 15, line 20, after 'comprises', insert '(a)'.

No. 35, in line 21, leave out from first 'of' to 'the' in line 22 and insert:
'or of land adjacent to, any river, or
(b) all or any part of, or of land adjacent to, any canal other than a canal owned or managed by'.

No. 36, in line 33, at end insert:
(5) The provisions of this section shall not be construed as restricting in any way the definition of 'open country' in the said section 59(2) as originaly enacted.—[Mrs. White.]

Clause 16.

AMENDMENTS OF ACT OF 1949.

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 37, in page 18, line 3, at beginning insert:
(1) Section 11(3) of the Act of 1949 (general powers of local planning authorities in National Parks: exclusion of powers under other Acts) shall cease to have effect.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we can discuss new Clause 17—General Powers of National Park Authorities—and Amendment No. 89.

Mr. MacDermot: These Amendments honour an undertaking give in Committee when the matter was raised by the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling). Their effect is to remove a limitation on the general powers of local planning authorities which has inhibited them from providing certain facilities such as benches, litter receptacles and other useful objects.

Mr. Jopling: This matter took two minutes in Committee. I think that it will take one and a half minutes tonight. I content myself with thanking the Government.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 38, in page 18, line 7, at end insert:
(2) In section 86(1)(b) of the Act of 1949 (information services to be provided by Commission) after the word 'architectural' there shall be inserted the word 'archaeological'.
On 30th January in Committee we accepted an Amendment to allow objects of archaeological interest to be added to the list of matters about which information and educational facilities might be provided in study centres in National Parks. This is a consequential Amendment to Section 86 of the 1949 Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 17.

RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AT WATER UNDERTAKERS' RESERVOIRS AND OTHER WATERS.

Mr. Channon: I beg to move Amendment No. 107, in page 18, line 29, leave out from 'undertakers' to end of line 3, and insert:
'shall unless it appears to them unreasonable to do so'.
The Amendment arises out of a discussion we had in Committee about the position of statutory water undertakers. Many hon. Members thought that the duty placed upon statutory water undertakers would be more appropriate if it was worded the other way round. As the Clause stands, statutory water undertakers may, if it appears to them reasonable so to do, permit the use by members of the public for the purposes of any form of recreation which the undertakers consider appropriate, and the Clause goes on to describe what this entails. I moved

an Amendment in Committee to ensure that the Clause would read:
Statutory water undertakers shall, unless it appears to them unreasonable to do so, permit the use by members of the public
and so on.
At that stage, we had an undertaking from the Minister of State, Welsh Office, that she would consider the matter. She said:
… we have a certain sympathy with the point of view which has been expressed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 30th January, 1968; c. 649.]
I now look to the right hon. Lady to translate her sympathy into practical action, and I am a little surprised that it has not been done already. I know that the statutory water undertakers are worried by the terms of this Amendment, and, no doubt, it would be possible to find an alternative form of words which would meet the case and not worry them so much. I do not think they need be particularly worried, because they would still have the right to stop members of the public coming if they thought it unreasonable that they should.
There is a case for putting the duty the other way round. The Government were sympathetic during the Committee stage. I hope that they will accept the Amendment, or something very like it, either now or at a later stage.

Mrs. White: We have not put down an Amendment, and I am not in a position to advise the House to accept the one now moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). The reason is that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government, is to meet representatives of the British Waterworks Association shortly after Easter to discuss the best way of handling this matter. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged that there are certain apprehensions about his Amendment. We think it desirable that there should be further talks. We have not been able to arrange them earlier, but they are to take place shortly. On the outcome of the talks will depend whether we may feel able to go as far as the Opposition went when the Bill goes to another place. At this stage, I can go no further than that. We are seized of the point which was made in Committee, and we hope to be able to deal with it before very long.

Mr. Channon: I am grateful that the matter is still receiving consideration. Perhaps the Minister of State will be good enough to let me know the result of the discussions. If all goes well, perhaps we may see an Amendment in another place.

At this stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mrs. White: I beg to move Amendment No. 39, in page 19, line 7, leave out 'of any waterway'.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we shall discuss Amendments Nos. 40 and 41.

2.0 a.m.

Mrs. White: The Amendments arise from a discussion on what was then Clause 16 and is now Clause 17. It was said that in addition to charges being made for the use of a reservoir or other waterway, for purposes such as for sailing, it would be logical to ensure that charges could be made for any installations on land. This seemed to us a fair point, and we have dealt with it.
It was also pointed out that it would be desirable to enable statutory water undertakings which permit the use of their reservoirs and gathering grounds for recreation to have some control over visitors' behaviour. This is also provided for with the provision of byelaw-making powers under Amendment No. 41.
Taken together, the Amendments fulfil the promises we made in Committee, and I hope that they will be acceptable to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 40, in page 19, line 7, leave out "and" and insert:
of any waterway or any land held with the waterway, and the use".

No. 41, in line 22, at end insert:
and any land held with the waterway, for the preservation of order, for the prevention of damage to land held with the waterway, or anything on or in the waterway or such land, and for securing that persons resorting o the waterway or such land will so behave themselves as to avoid undue interference with the enjoyment of the waterway or land by other persons, including (without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions of this subsection) byelaws".—[Mrs. White.]

Clause 18.

PROVISION OF FACILITIES BY FORESTRY COMMISSIONERS.

Mr. Channon: I beg to move Amendment No. 94, in page 21, line 8, at end insert:
(7) The provisions of subsection (2) above shall not apply to any land for the time being forming part of the open waste lands of the New Forest.
I am sorry that we should have to deal with this very important matter at this late hour. I shall be as brief as possible, but I may have to take a little longer than I did in dealing with recent Amendments. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the New Forest (Sir O. Crosthwaite-Eyre) will also wish to take part in the debate.
There was a great deal of discussion in Committee about the New Forest. A proposed new Clause dealing with the New Forest, its special position, and how it would be affected by the Bill if unamended was debated at some length. It had the support of the verderers of the New Forest as well as of my hon. and gallant Friend, who was not a member of the Committee.
My hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment, which also has the support of the verderers, is more restricted than the new Clause we considered in Committee, dealing only with Clause 18, which concerns the Forestry Commission and its powers in regard to trees and woodlands. Subsection (2) is the very large subsection that entitles the Forestry Commissioners to
… provide, or arrange for or assist in the provision of, tourist, recreational or sporting facilities …
and allows them, for example, to provide

"(a) accommodation for visitors,
(b) camping sites and caravan sites,
(c) places for meals and refreshments, … 
(e) information and display centres,
(f) shops … 
(g) public conveniences."
The verderers have long been aware of the rapid increase in the use of the New Forest by the public for recreational purposes and have taken many steps to help this.
They ask that they should be entitled to continue their present responsibilities on these matters and that it should not be left, as the Bill would have it, that the


Forestry Commission should be empowered to provide these facilities on the open waste lands of the New Forest. Section 6 of the New Forest Act, 1964, enables the Minister of Agriculture, with the agreement of the verderers, to authorise the appropriation of land forming part of the waste land for camping sites and so on. That Act already includes ample power, and the principle that the verderers shall have control of this kind of activity within their jurisdiction was conferred by Parliament in 1964. After we had had a longer discussion in Standing Committee than we shall probably have today, a deputation of verderers had the pleasure of meeting representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, and the Forestry Commissioners, on 8th March, in response to assurances given by the Parliamentary Secretary in reply to the debate. I understand that an assurance was given that the Forestry Commission would consult the verderers before exercising Clause 18(2) in relation to the New Forest.
However, I think there is no doubt that the verderers are concerned about losing the protection afforded by Section 18 of the New Forest Act, 1964, which later became the New Forest Act, 1964. The principle that verderers should have control in matters within their jurisdiction is important. Once it is allowed to be eroded, it may be that the New Forest, as it exists today, will be threatened. I hope that a method will be found of meeting the points raised by the verderers, discussed in Standing Committee, and raised by the deputation. If it cannot be done in the way suggested in the Amendment, I hope that other ways will be sought to achieve the aim of the verderers in this matter, for which I hope the Government have good will. I do not think it is a great deal for the verderers to ask for this protection. Other places get special treatment, like Epping Forest and Burnham Beeches which are specially mentioned in Clause 36, and they get special treatment which is not now afforded to the New Forest. It may be argued that there are historical reasons why this should be so, that it is easier to do this for Epping Forest and Burnham Beeches than for the New

Forest, but any argument based purely on historical grounds is not sufficient to invalidate the arguments put forward for the New Forest. If it cannot be done this way, surely it is not beyond the wit of the Minister to get something in the Bill to meet these special points.
I have heard rumours that if an Amendment of this kind were made, it might make the Bill hybrid. That is the last thing we want to do, but Clause 36(4) of the Bill applies, in a similar way to what we are asking, to Epping Forest and Burnham Beeches, which are lands under the regulation and management of the Corporation of London as Conservators of Epping Forest.
I also understand that in the Commons Registration Act, 1965, the provisions relating to registration are not to apply to the New Forest or Epping Forest and that the question of hybridity did not arise there. The merits of the case are self-evident. The New Forest is managed in a way much admired by those who know it. The verderers are entitled to the protection they seek and it is in the interest of all those who know the New Forest and want to preserve it.
I am sure that the Forestry Commissioners have no wish to do anything damaging to the New Forest but the present more satisfactory system, enshrined in legislation as recently as 1964, should continue. The verderers are entitled to the support of this House for their keeping overall control of matters long within their jurisdiction.
I hope that the Government will be able to find a way, preferably by this Amendment, of protecting the verderers. This is an important matter and I am sure that all those who know the New Forest support the principle involved, I hope that, even at this hour, the House will turn its attention to doing what it can to meet the point raised by the verderers. A solution along these lines would be in the interests both of those who live in the New Forest and those who visit it. I hope that the Government will not stick on the ground that it is difficult to do this because it would make the Bill hybrid.

Mr. Skeffington: I hope I can short-circuit the discussion while doing justice to the arguments put by the hon. Gentleman. The powers of Clause 18 are very


important new ones for the Forestry Commission and of great assistance to it, here as elsewhere. Anyone who knows the New Forest and the intense holiday pressure on the area realises that proper provision has to be made. The Forestry Commission has done and will do a great deal of work in this respect with the consent and agreement of the verderers.
I had the pleasure of visiting the New Forest recently and of seeing the splendid work done there. It is true that the Forestry Commission could exercise the powers under this Bill for the attainment of the objectives of subsection (2), but, as I said in our interesting debate in Committee, unless, from the practical point of view, it secured the consent of the verderers, it would have no power unless it went through a very long procedure for the alienation of common rights. That would obviously defeat the whole purpose, so it should be done with the consent and agreement of the verderers.
2.15 a.m.
I am happy to give the undertaking that the Forestry Commission will, as it has always done, consult the verderers in any activities it proposes to undertake. It may find it easier to do so under the legislation which the hon. Gentleman prefers. On the whole the powers contained in Clause 18 are more widespread. It would be impossible from the commonsense point of view, to undertake these necessary developments in the New Forest without the consent of the very honourable and ancient verderers, who have for so long discharged important duties in the Forest. I am happy to give the assurance that the Forestry Commission will consult.

Col. Sir Oliver Crosthwaite-Eyre: I find it difficult to follow the Minister. If he is genuine in the assurance that he has given, he has all the powers under the New Forest Act, 1949. Clause 18 (1) (c) reads:
with the agreement of the verderers authorise the use of land in the Forest for the purpose of recreation and the erection on such land of buildings or other works for that purpose and the enclosure of such land in so far as its enclosure is necessary to preserve the land for use for that purpose or to preserve buildings or works erected or constructed by virtue of this paragraph".

That gives him all the powers he needs, but it means that he has to get the consent of the verderers first. How far in future does this Measure extend those powers? All that it means is that the Forestry Commission now takes the ultimate right in its own hands to decide what it is to do. Under the provisions in the 1949 Act, passed by a Socialist Government, it has all the powers it needs. But now it is taking these additional powers. Why?
It would be equally fair to say that the Minister has not given any reason why he wants to extend the Act. If he can give me any reason why the powers of that Act are insufficient, I will give him an assurance on behalf of the verderers of the New Forest—and I should have said that I am a verderer—that we as verderers will support him. That is a rather generous offer. What he has said tonight sounds like the Government bulldozer. For over 300 years, the New Forest has had its own, separate, legislation, and has managed its own affairs. As the Minister was gracious enough to say, it has proved its worth. All those Measures have been hybrid. We have tried to avoid embarrassing the Minister by putting down an Amendment that would cause the Bill to be hybrid. We have had no response from him at all.
Consultation is promised. If under all legislation up to the present moment there has had to be consultation or agreement, would the hon. Gentleman agree that to hand all powers to the Forestry Commission seems unfair? Not only that, but the Minister might agree, after studying the practice concerning parks in Canada and America, that to have a successful park one has to delegate authority to the people immediately responsible for it. One finds that throughout the whole range of Canadian parks, from the great wild parks to the parks near a city and finally urban parks. If this Clause is forced through, the Minister will be taking away local government and placing it in other hands. We are told it will be the Forestry Commission, but the whole temper of the Forestry Commission has changed in the last few years. It has had to change. Giving control to the Forestry Commission is in effect giving it to the Minister himself.
I had the opportunity of talking to the ex-Minister of Agriculture. I told him


of this position in the terms of the generous offers given in Committee on the Countryside Bill. I very much regret that he changed his office and his successor did not see fit to see me to discuss the problem.
I will not ask my hon. Friends to divide on this Amendment, but I do not think that the Government have given us a fair deal. They have not realised what the New Forest stands for and they have not honoured the pledges that they gave in Standing Committee.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 20.

TREE PRESERVATION ORDERS; PROVISION FOR COMPENSATION.

Amendment made: No. 43, in page 22, line 8 [Clause 20], leave out 'damage or expenditure' and insert 'loss or damage'.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

Clause 21.

SIGNPOSTING OF FOOTPATHS AND BRIDLE WAYS.

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 101, in page 23, line 20, leave out 'or position'.
With this Amendment you, Mr. Speaker, have grouped No. 44, No. 51, No. 53, No. 102, No. 55 and No. 113.
These Amendments, which relate to the former Clause 20, have two effects. First, they permit a highway authority to erect signs or notices serving the purpose of signposts. Hon. Members who were on the Committee may recall that it was suggested that in a number of cases it was not necessary that there should be signposts in the case of indications along a path. This seemed to us to be right and we have provided for them in this series of Amendments.
The second purpose of the Amendments would be to give express power to the highway authority to enter on land to carry out the work of positioning and maintaining signs and signposts. This is a matter which very much concerns my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson) and other hon. Members. By the Amendments to

Clause 21 we have provided that the power to discharge this duty shall be within the powers introduced in the Road Traffic Regulation Act, 1967, so that the proper procedures can follow from that inclusion. These seem to be useful Amendments which were broadly supported by all members of the Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 44, in line 20, leave out from 'signposts' to 'along' in line 21, No. 51, in line 42, leave out 'signs or notices', No. 53, in page 24, line 2, leave out from 'signposts' to 'along' in line 3, No. 102, in page 24, line 3, leave out 'or position'.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I beg to move Amendment No. 106, in page 24, line 4, at end insert:
Provided that before giving their consent to any such proposal the highway authority shall consult with the owner or occupier of the land.
This Amendment appears to be necessary because, in Clause 21(1), the Government admit that the highway authority should consult with the owner or occupier of the land concerned before erecting signposts to point out public rights of way. But subsection (5) reads:
With the consent of the highway authority, any other person may erect or position and maintain signposts, or other signs or notices serving the same purpose …
There is no mention of consultation with the owner of the land. The point was mentioned in Committee, and I can only think that the Government have overlooked it.
Two questions arise. The first is why any other person should not be bound in this way to consult the owner of land. The second is to inquire who the Government envisage to be embraced in the term "any other person". Who would be putting up signposts other than the local authority? I think that, in almost every case, it would be the local authority.

2.30 a.m.

Mr. Skeffington: There are two points about the Amendment. First, the expression "any other person" has the usual legal definition. It can mean any body corporate or individual. However as the hon. Gentleman surmised, the most normal agent of the highway authority in this case would be the parish council.
It is not thought necessary to provide for a second consent because in Committee we accepted an Amendment which provided that the highway authority should consult the owner-occupier. That will be done even in this case. What the highway authority is doing is suggesting that some other authority may more conveniently do the work. The owner-occupier will have the opportunity, when he is consulted, of saying where he thinks the sign should be posted. It therefore teems unnecessary to have the second consent, or the consent proposed by the Amendment. There will be consultation by the highway authority, which will still be the overall responsible authority.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but he will admit that on the face of it it is most confusing to a layman. I am sure that my hon. Friends are satisfied with what the hon. Gentleman said. It appears that any other person, whether it is a parish council or anybody else, should have to consult, but I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, that the person concerned will have to consult. I regret that the Government have not included this provision in subsection (5) also, but their draftsmen have obviously advised that it is unnecessary. I accept what the hon. Gentleman said, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 55, in page 24, line 7, leave out 'or other sign or notice'.

No. 113, in line 9, at end insert:
'and in section 63 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 (power to enter on land) 'traffic signs' shall include signposts for footpaths and bridle-ways.

(7) In this section (and in the amendments made by this section in other enactments) references to signposts shall include references to other signs or notices serving the same purpose and references to the erection of a signpost shall include references to positioning any such other sign or notice'.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Clause 22.

DUTY TO MAINTAIN STILES, ETC., ON FOOTPATHS AND BRIDLEWAYS.

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 59, in page 24, line 10, after 'other', insert 'similar'.
I think that it will be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 60.

Mr. Speaker: So be it.

Mr. MacDermot: The effect of the first Amendment is to limit the type of structure to be maintained across a footpath or bridleway to something similar to a stile or gate. It will exclude a bridge, and clarify any doubt there might be. This point was raised by one hon. Gentleman opposite in Committee.
The second Amendment also meets a point raised in Committee, and makes the standard of maintenance of stiles and gates a more reasonable requirement. They will have to be maintained in a safe condition, and to the standard of repair required to prevent unreasonable interference with the rights of persons using them.

Mr. Channon: We are grateful to the Government for fulfilling the undertaking they gave in Committee. During our discussions upstairs the Minister said that this was the standard requirement for repairs, and he undertook to substitute other words for those which we thought were too onerous. I think it will be generally welcomed that the Government have been able to bring in these Amendments. I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for doing so, and give them our support.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 60, in page 24, line 11, leave out from in to 'persons' in line 12 and insert:
'a safe condition, and to the standard of repair required to prevent unreasonable interference with the rights of the'.

No. 63, in line 26, at end insert:

(4) The highway authority shall, in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (3) above, contribute not less than one quarter of any expenses shown to their satisfaction to have been reasonably incurred.

(5) Subsection (1) above shall not apply to any structure if and so long as the highway authority are, under an agreement in writing with any other person, liable to maintain the structure.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Clause 23.

PLOUGHING OF FOOTPATH OR BRIDLEWAY.

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 65, in page 25, line 17, leave out 'nor' and insert '(b) shall not'.
It would be for the convenience of the House to discuss with this Amendment, Amendment No. 66. These Amendments to the former Clause 22 permit the temporary diversion of a path on to a neighbour's land with his consent. Everybody in the Committee thought this was an extremely good idea.
This proposal gives effect to the intention of the Amendment put down by the hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson), and I am sure he will be glad that we have adopted his suggestion.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 66, in line 18, at end insert:
'unless written consent to the making of the order has been given by the occupier of that land, and by any other person whose consent is needed to obtain access to the land'.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

Mr. Channon: I beg to move Amendment No. 93, in page 25, line 18, at end insert:
(b) shall not affect the right of access of any statutory undertakers to any apparatus belonging to or maintained by those undertakers and situate on, over or under a path or way.
This is another comparatively small point which we discussed in the Standing Committee, and I shall not weary the House with the arguments at great length.
It limits the right of access of any statutory undertakers to apparatus belonging to them or maintained by them and situate on, over or under a path or right of way. There is some doubt about the right of access of statutory undertakers, and I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary could tell us the results of his promise in the Standing Committee to look at this problem, and whether there is any need for concern about the position of statutory undertakers.
If there is, perhaps he would indicate whether the Government will consider—even at this late stage—putting down an Amendment to make the position clear.

Mr. Skeffington: I said in the Standing Committee that we would look at this proposition to see if there was any real need for it. It is perfectly true that in the Highways Act, 1959, Sections 110 and 111 do have a proviso whereby the rights of statutory undertakers can be considered and safeguarded. But the

result of our general investigation has been this. These Orders are of a very limited period, and it is unlikely from the inquiries we made that the existing powers of statutory undertakers could be affected to any great extent.
It is the Government's view that it is unnecessary, therefore, to make any further saving provisions.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 25.

TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDERS FOR SPECIAL AREAS IN THE COUNTRYSIDE.

Mr. Jopling: I beg to move, in page 26, line 28, after 'area', insert 'of preventing interference with the quiet enjoyment of the area by the public'.
This is an Amendment which I moved in the Committee, and which stemmed from a desire to preserve within National Parks certain wilderness areas where people, vegetation, animals, and everything else, can be preserved from the rush of modern life.
We have several of these areas in the Lake District, which I think are important. The unfortunate thing is that the peace of these areas has been shattered, or open to be shattered, in recent years by the construction and arrival of certain types of motor vehicles, such as Landrovers and other types of four-wheeled vehicles and the scramble motor cycle, which are capable of getting to these almost inaccesssible places.
This is very new phenomenon, and I I think it is essential—and I hope this will be agreed on all sides of the House—to have areas in the countryside where no mechanical vehicle can get. The Parliamentary Secretary said in Committee that powers to prohibit vehicles like this from these areas already existed, and that prohibitions for reasons including noise had already been made. There was some doubt about this and, in Column 740 of HANSARD, he said that he would look at it again, to make sure that these powers can be ensured. We will be glad to hear his conclusions.

Mr. Skeffington: We have had another look at this and have consulted the Ministry of Transport which has had great experience of these regulations in different


conditions and in testing their local impact. The Ministry thinks that the positive wording of Clause 25(2),
… the purpose of … affording better opportunities for the public to enjoy the amenities of the area … 
would cover the substance of the hon. Gentleman's proposal, and is thought preferable to the hon. Gentleman's own wording in securing his objective.
What strengthens that still further is the fact that Clause 141 of the Transport Bill which is now before the House contains a new departure for the Ministry of Transport, in that it would add, as a reason for making a new traffic regulation order, the preservation of the amenities of the area through which a road would run. We think that these two powers will go a long way to meet the hon. Gentleman's objective, if not entirely to cover it.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: I am glad that my hon. Friend has given these assurances, but he is repeating the answers which he gave in Committee and which I did not find very satisfactory. He mentioned the reference in the subsection to the public using the countryside for recreation, but many members of the public want to enjoy the countryside noisily, aid this mere reference does not meet the point as many of us would like it met.
I too would draw my hon. Friend's attention to Column 740, in which he said:
The regulating authority will always have to balance what is for the public good in making its order …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 6th February 1968, c. 740.]
Obviously, the views of the public good vary enormously. An ardent motor cyclist would see it in terms of better provisions for scrambling, which a botanist would abominate. There are problems of balance.

Mr. Jopling: It is important not to get confused between a person going on a scramble motor cycle and organised scrambling, which is very different. There is little danger of organised scrambling in the areas which I have in mind; I am anxious to prevent the itinerant adventurers who want to see whether they can get from one valley to the next by way or a mountain peak.

2.45 a.m.

Mr. Jackson: I accept the hon. Gentleman's correction. I agree that there is greater danger from the freelance motor cycle scrambler than from organised scramblers.
This proposal would bring to the notice of planning authorities the need to be mindful of the volume of noise which is permissible. I accept that this is declaratory, but in this context even a declaratory statement would be of great value. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the matter.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 68, in line 29, leave out "area for" and insert "amenities of the area or".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 69, in line 29, at end insert "in the area".

Mr. Skeffington: In view of our earlier discussion the House will see that we have gone a considerable way to re-emphasise the powerful, though precise, sentiments expressed in the second part of subsection (2). Reference to "amenities of the area" will go a long way to meeting the point made in Committee by a number of hon. Members, and particularly by the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). This is very much in line with the Commission's functions as defined at the beginning of the Bill.

Mr. Jopling: As the Clause has been amended, and with the undertakings given by the Parliamentary Secretary on the previous Amendment, the case I made earlier seems to have been fully covered.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 69, in line 29, at end insert "in the area".—[Mr. Skeffington.]

Mr. Iremonger: I beg to move Amendment No. 70, in page 27, line 3, at end insert:
(5) The Commission may make submissions in respect of the making of a temporary order as respects any highway for a period of not more than seven days in any one year for sporting or recreational purposes, and, if


the Minister so directs, shall make such submissions.
(6) Before the Commission or as the case may be the Countryside Commission of Scotland makes any such submissions they shall consult with all local authorities affected and with such other bodies as appear to them to have an interest in those matters, and the Minister may require them to consult with any person or body of persons.
Two important points are made in this proposal. The first is that before making any submissions for a traffic regulation order, the Commission must consult with the local authority and other interested bodies. If that consultation does not occur
… the Minister may require them to consult with any person or body of persons.
Motor cycle and other vehicle users are concerned about these road traffic regulation orders. For this reason the Minister should make it clear that consultation must take place and that, if it does not take place, he will require it to take place.
My second point is in subsection (5) about temporary traffic regulation orders for seven days in any one year for sporting or recreational purposes. I emphasise that this is for only seven days in any one year and it would therefore include practices. It is to cover such events as are arranged by legislation by the Manx Parliament in the Isle of Man, the Tourist Trophy Motor Cycle Races at the beginning of June and the Manx Grand Prix in September. It would cover such things as car rallying, cycle races, horse trials, fell foot racing in the Lake District and cross country athletics generally. It is desirable that this Amendment should allow such national events to take place. They attract tourists apart from the help they give manufacturers of machines for these trials.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will make the same sort of encouraging noises about this Amendment as he made when we discussed the earlier Amendments moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) referring to motor cycles. From the point of view of public relations, it is essential that the proper bodies, the local authorities, should be consulted.

Mr. Skeffington: This again is to some extent the kind of Amendment which probably arises from a feeling of lack

of confidence in the way in which these matters are primarily operated, as I think they should be, by the local authorities concerned. Subject to the overall ministerial power, traffic regulations are a matter for highway authorities, not the Commission. As I said earlier when I reviewed the Commission's resources and personnel, this is not the kind of function which the Commission is equipped to undertake, nor which it would want to undertake.
There are a number of points about the Amendment which I do not understand. It is difficult to visualise what is meant by "sporting purposes". I should have thought that most sporting purposes came within the definition of recreational purposes. Provisions are already made in this connection. If it were thought to mean motor racing on the highways—I have some suspicion that it may be, knowing the source from which the Amendment came—that is prohibited by Section 7 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960. It would be difficult to accept the Amendment for that if for no other reason.
It would be undesirable for the Minister to direct the Commission to make submissions for an order. That is not the way in which one envisages the Commission operating. Largely, it is a guiding body; it has influence and coordinates, but, except in relation to such matters as are in Clause 3, it has no executive powers. The Amendment is very much contrary to the view of the Opposition that traffic orders and regulations are to be made for the quiet enjoyment of the countryside rather than for the reverse.
For all these reasons the Amendment is not practicable. It is not within the spirit of the relationship between the Commission and the Minister, and I do not think the Commission would have staff to do this work. Subsection (6) would place a very heavy responsibility on the Commission by requiring it to consult all the bodies affected in addition to all the other work it has to do. One understands that there is a problem which motor cyclists and others may have in arranging for their pastimes. I believe that the proper way in which this matter can best be dealt with is through the regional sports councils acting in conjunction with the local authorities. I know


that the hon. Gentleman said that this had been tried before, but it has certainly not been pursued through the regional sports councils because they were not in existence. Relations between the councils and the local authorities are excellent, and I am sure that this is the better way of achieving the real purpose behind the Amendment.

Mr. Iremonger: The hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the point concerning the temporary traffic regulation orders for seven days to allow racing to take place over a closed circuit on a public road.

Mr. Skeffington: I do not see how I can deal with that, as racing is prohibited by Section 7 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960. If it is to be permissible, it must be made permissible in some other way, and certainly not on a public highway.

Mr. Iremonger: In view of what the Minister has said, it would be a pity to subject the Government to the humiliation of a defeat, and therefore I shall not press the Amendment unduly. What the hon. Gentleman has said about the regional sports councils is helpful. As he says, these councils have not been in existence long enough for their usefulness to be fully tested.
I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 27.

EXCHEQUER GRANTS FOR COUNTRYSIDE.

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 71, in page 28, line 16, leave out from 'site' to second 'and' in line 18 and insert:
'provided mainly as a stopping-place for those on their way to or from the place or area where they spend their holidays'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment can be taken Amendment No. 72.

MacDermot: These Amendments are an attempt to honour the undertaking that I gave that we would see whether we could find wording which was slightly less restrictive than that at present in the Bill, but which would show that it was intended that these grant provisions should apply to camping sites and caravan sites respectively when they

are used by holidaymakers in transit. It is clear that these grant provisions are for transit sites and that we are not seeking to provide grant for holiday caravan sites.

Mr. Channon: I am sorry to delay the House, but I shall not be more than a minute or two.
These Amendments go partially towards meeting the points that I raised in Committee. I have in mind one matter which I should like to raise, and perhaps the Minister could answer it. If not, perhaps he will write to me.
It has been represented to me by people who are responsible in the caravan world that the short-stay transit and touring sites in which they are especially interested are sites which local authorities can provide under Clause 8 in respect of tent sites and Section 24 of the Caravan Sites Act, 1960, in respect of caravan sites. If the sites come within the rather narrow definition of Clause 27 under heads 1, 2 and 3, the local authorities will qualify for 75 per cent. grants.
The Government have expressed the hope that the overwhelming majority of local authority sites provided under these powers will be entrusted to clubs such as the Caravan Club and other reputable clubs of that kind. They could, under Clause 8(3), lease a site to a club or keep more direct control and appoint a club as managers.
Must the local authority bring the site into being on land which it owns or leases, or is it enough to give planning permission to someone else under suitable conditions? Does ensuring that there is provision come within the phrase "provide a site"? Perhaps it does, in the light of Clause 32, which allows a local authority to arrange for facilities to be provided by some other person.
3.0 a.m.
There is considerable doubt about this. There is the added complication that sites provided for caravanners under Section 24 of the Caravan Sites Act would not be facilities provided "under this Act". This question is not academic. The best people to provide many of the required transit sites may very likely be filling stations, hotels, etc., not the local authority, but without the grants there may not be enough inducement. Should it make any difference whether the site is owned by the local authority and run


on a long lease by a club, or is owned and run by a private landowner under conditions laid down in the planning permission, the licence and the handing on of a grant? Either is capable of giving the service the public wants and which the Government say the public should have.
I should be grateful if I could be told at some time, if not tonight, whether the Government's chosen pattern of encouragement through the grants via the local authorities is compatible with the views of the British Travel Association and other experts on how the necessary network should be built up from contributions of many kinds by many kinds of operator. These points are relevant to these Amendments, but the Government may prefer to study what I have said. If so, perhaps the Minister of State would kindly write to me. I should be grateful to receive further information about the caravan Clause, which has caused some complications.

Mr. MacDermot: At the least,:here would have to be an agreement between the authority and the owner of the land, but I should like to consider the points the hon. Gentleman has made and write to him about them.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 72, in line 23, leave out from "countryside" to "and" in line 25 and insert:
provided mainly as a stopping-place for those on their way to or from the place or area where they spend their holidays".—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Clause 30.

PROTECTION FOR INTERESTS IN COUNTRYSIDE.

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 73, in page 31, line 27, after "duty" insert "of every Minister, and".
In Committee my hon. and learned Friend gave an undertaking—I invite attention to column 865—to effect a change of this kind. The Amendment has the effect of requiring every Minister exercising functions under the Bill and the 1948 Act
to have due regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry and to the economic and social interests of rural areas.

Mr. Channon: I am grateful to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for having tabled this very satisfactory Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 32.

POWER TO MAKE BYELAWS AND RELATED PROVISIONS ABOUT WARDENS.

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 103, in page 32, line 32, leave out "Provided that" and insert "(4)".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be for the convenience of the House to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 74.

Mr. Skeffington: These Amendments have the effect of applying the proviso, that byelaws shall not interfere with the functions of statutory undertakers having functions in relation to the land or waterway affected, to all byelaws made under the Clause and not merely to bye-laws under subsection (3). We were pressed to take this step and are glad to have done so.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 74, in page 32, line 32, leave out "subsection" and insert "section".—[Mr. Skeffington.]

Clause 33.

GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO LOCAL AUTHORITY POWERS CONFERRED BY ACT.

Mr. Channon: I beg to move Amendment No. 76, in page 33, line 44, at end insert:
Provided that no charge shall be made by a local authority for the use of any such facilities or services by statutory undertakers in the exercise of their functions.
I have been asked to raise this matter by the water undertakers. They point out that statutory undertakers may frequently have to use facilities and services provided under the Bill, and they give as an obvious example roads and parking places. Where the statutory undertakers are simply carrying out their statutory obligation, it would be ludicrous if they had charges imposed upon them. My Amendment would provide that in such circumstances no charges would be made. I am sure that it would be wise to write such a provision into the Bill.

Mr. MacDermot: So ludicrous would it be that there is no power to enable them to do it, so the Amendment is unnecessary. In other words, I cannot see how the situation to which the Amendment is directed could arise.
Clause 33 empowers local authorities to make charges for facilities which they provide, or to empower someone else, acting as their agent, to make charges. The local authorities can make charges only for facilities provided by them in the exercise of their functions. If they arrange for facilities to be provided by some other person, they may authorise that person to make reasonable charges. For these reasons, the Amendment is not necessary.

Mr. Channon: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I hope that what he says is correct and there is no danger of such an occasion arising. In view of what he has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 34.

POWER TO AMEND LOCAL ACTS CONCERNING LOCAL AUTHORITIES.

Mr. Channon: I beg to move Amend-m nit No. 77, in page 34, line 20, at end in insert:
'(except so far as the provision relates to the water undertaking of a local authority)'.
I shall not rehearse the general arguments about the merits of Clause 34, save to say that it would enable the Minister to repeal not only general local government provisions in local Acts but also provisions relating to local authority water undertakings. There is no need for such a power to amend water enactments to be taken in this Bill. In many ways, it would result in anomaly if the power were used. It would put local authority undertakings in a different position from company undertakings and some of the water boards.
I do not insist on the wording of the Amendment, but I hope that the point is accepted. It is put forward by an Association whose membership includes the great majority of the local authority water undertakers.

Mrs. White: We had some entertaining discussion on the Clause in Committee, with a good deal of lawyers' reminiscence, but this particular point was not raised at that stage. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that there would be certain anomalies as between different types of water undertaker. There is also a point which he did not raise, that under Section 33 of the Water Act, 1945, the Minister may already, on the application of any statutory water undertaker, repeal or amend any local enactment relating to the supply of water by such undertakers.
We are not entirely content with the form of the Amendment, but we should be happy to look at it. As I said earlier, my hon. and learned Friend is to meet the British Waterworks Association shortly. That might, perhaps, be an occasion to clarify this point as well.

Mr. Channon: In view of the right hon. Lady's undertaking to look at the matter again, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 36.

APPLICATION OF GENERAL PROVISIONS OF ACT OF 1949.

Amendment made: No. 78, in page 35, line 21, leave out 'section 7(5) of' and insert
'Schedule (procedure for taking common land) to'.—[Mr. Greenwood.]

Clause 40.

SHORT TITLE, REPEALS, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT.

Amendment made: No. 79, in page 38, line 7, at end insert:
(4) The provisions of this Act amending or repealing any provision of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957 extended to Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 80, in page 38, line 8, leave out from 'except' to as ' in line 9 and insert:
'subsections (1), (3) and (4) of this section, sections 11, 19, 20, section (Tree preservation orders: compensation), sections 25, 30 and 36(3), and so much of sections 36(1), 38 and 39'.


The Amendment brings up to date the list of provisions which apply to Scotland. The changes are a consequence of matters we have dealt with, such as the Government's new Clause concerning the revised basis of compensation for tree preservation orders, the application to Scotland of the House of Commons disqualification provision, and the insertion of Clause 30, requiring that there shall be due regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry and the economic and social interest of rural areas.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 81, in page 38, line 10, after 'and', and insert 'subject' to subsection (4) above'.

New Schedule.

PROCEDURE FOR TAKING COMMON LAND.

1.—(1) For the purpose of enabling a local authority to exercise their powers under the principal section on land taken out of the common land the Minister may in accordance with this Schedule authorise a local authority to acquire any part of the common land, including all commonable and other rights in or over the land, and, where the local authority already hold the land, to appropriate that land for the purposes of the principal section.

(2) Where the local authority already hold the land, but subject to any commonable or other rights in or over the land, they shall not appropriate the land until they have, under sub-paragraph (1) above, acquired all those rights.

(3) Land acquired or appropriated as authorised under this paragraph shall be held by the local authority free from the public right of access, but shall be used for the benefit of the public resorting to the common land.

(4) The Minister shall not give his authority under this paragraph unless he is satisfied—
(a) that there has been or will be given in exchange for the land other land, not being less in area and being equally advantageous to the persons, if any, entitled to commonable and other rights, and to the public, and that the land given in exchange has been or will be vested in the persons in whom the land taken was vested, and subject to the like rights, trusts and incidents as attached to the land taken, or
(b) that the giving in exchange of such other land is unnecessary, whether in the interests of the persons, if any, entitled to commonable or other rights or in the interests of the public.

Preliminary notices

2.—(1) Before a local authority apply to the Minister for authority under paragraph 1 above as respects any part of the common land, they

shall in two successive weeks publish in one or more newspapers circulating in the locality of the land a notice—
(a) stating that the local authority propose to make the application;
(b) giving particulars of the land which it is proposed to take out of the common land;
(c) stating whether land has been or is to be given in exchange, and, if so, giving particulars of that land, and stating the respective areas of the land to be taken and of the land given or to be given in exchange.

(2) If all or any part of the land to be taken is in a parish, the local authority shall, not later than the time of first publication of the notice, serve a copy of the notice on the parish council or, in the case of a parish not having a parish council, on the chairman of the parish meeting.

(3) The notice shall name a place within the locality where a map showing the said land, and any land given or to be given in exchange, may be inspected, and shall specify the time (not being less than twenty-eight days from first publication of the notice) within which and the manner in which representations with respect to the proposals in the notice may be made to the Minister.

(4) The Minister shall before giving his decision on the application take into consideration every representation which has been duly made and which has not been withdrawn, and may if he thinks fit either afford to each person making such a representation an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Minister for the purpose, or cause a public inquiry to be held.

Compulsory purchase

3.—(1) A local authority shall have power to acquire compulsorily any land which is required by them for the purposes of their functions under the principal section, and which is part of the common land (or any commonable or other rights in or over that land), but the Minister shall not confirm a compulsory purchase order made in pursuance of this section except after giving his authority under paragraph 1 above as respects the land.

(2) Any notice which relates to a compulsory purchase order made in pursuance of this paragraph and which is published or served under paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act 1946 shall refer to the provisions of this Schedule and shall state whether land has been, or is to be, given in exchange.

(3) The notice to be published under paragraph 2 of this Schedule may be combined with a notice to be published under the said paragraph 3 in the Act of 1946 in the same newspaper and relating to the same land.

(4) If land has been, or is to be, given in exchange—
(a) the notice to be published and served under the said paragraph 3 in the Act of 1946 shall give particulars of that land and state the respective areas of the land to be taken and of the land given or to be given in exchange,


(b) the map in the compulsory purchase order shall show that land,
(c) the compulsory purchase order may provide for vesting any land to be given in exchange in the persons, and subject to the rights, trusts and incidents, mentioned in paragraph 1(4) above.

(5) A compulsory purchase order made in pursuance of this paragraph may provide for discharging the land purchased from all rights, trusts and incidents to which it was previously subject.

(6) Paragraph 11 of Schedule 1 to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act 1946 (special provisions for acquisition of common land) shall not apply to a compulsory purchase order made in pursuance of this paragraph, and section 22 of the Commons Act 1889 (consent of Minister required for purchase of common land) shall not apply to the acquisition of land in pursuance of such a compulsory purchase order.

Acquisition by agreement and appropriation

4.—(1) A local authority shall not acquire by agreement, or appropriate, any common land for the purposes of the principal section except as authorised under paragraph 1 of this Schedule.

(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (1) above, a local authority may appropriate any common land for the purposes of the principal section without compliance with the provisions of section 163 of the Local Government Act 1933 or section 104 of the Act of 1949 as amended by section 23 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1959 (under which the approval of the Minister is required).

(3) On an appropriation of land under this paragraph such adjustment shall be made in the accounts of the local authority as the Minister may direct.

Power to override restrictions affecting common land

5. No restrictions apply to commons generally, or to any particular common, contained in or having effect under any enactment, and no trust subject to which the common land is held, shall prevent a local authority from taking part of common land in accordance with this Schedule.

Protection for statutory undertakers

6. References in this Schedule to commonable and other rights in or over common land shall not be taken as including references to any right vested in statutory undertakers for the purpose of the carrying on of their undertaking.

Interpretation

7. In this Schedule 'common land' has the meaning given by section 22(1) of the Commons Registration Act 1965.—[Mr. White.]

Brought up, and read the First and Second times, and added to the Bill.

Schedule 1.

PROPOSALS SUBMITTED TO STATUTORY UNDERTAKERS AND OTHER AUTHORITIES.

Amendment made: No. 83, in page 39, line 6, leave out '6(3)' and insert:
'(country parks: sailing, boating, bathing and fishing'.—[Mr. Greenwood.]

Schedule 2.

PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY.

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 84, in page 40, line 5, at end insert:
Provided that the authority shall not take account of the evidence if satisfied that the person prejudiced by the public right of way, or his predecesor in title, could have produced the evidence before the relevant date mentioned in the said section 33(1) and had no reasonable excuse for failing to do so.
The Amendment deals with a small but important point. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson) and other hon. Members were concerned to see that with the provision in the Schedule for correcting errors we did not let in new evidence, so that matters which should have been raised in the normal procedure and be subject to inquiry got in by the back door, as it were. The Government were reasonably satisfied that that could not happen under the Schedule as drafted, but it was an important point, and to set at rest any fears we have tabled this Amendment, which further tightens up the provision.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Channon: I beg to move Amendment No. 85, in page 40, line 7, at end insert:

Section 37 (powers of Minister to expedite survey)

The power of the Minister in s. 37 to expedite the preparation of maps and statements shall include the power to direct a surveying authority to prepare a revised map and statement in draft form where the period referred to in s. 33(3) has expired and where, after consultation with the surveying authority, it seems to the Minister that because of changes since the relevant date the definitive map, or the last preceding map prepared in definitive form, as the case may be, is no longer a reasonably accurate record of public rights of way in the area of the authority.

The Amendment has the support of hon. Members on both sides. The present position is that the surveying authority


should prepare a revised draft map within five years of the relevant date of the previous definitive map, that is, the date on which the original draft map was published. I understand that in nearly all cases this is a date in the early 1950s. I am told by the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpath Preservation Society, which is anxious to sponsor the Amendment, that the procedure in reaching the definitive stage has taken so long that the map is often out of date before it is published.

3.15 a.m.

A definitive map published today often reflects the footpath pattern of 10 to 15 years ago and the provision becomes more urgent. It is possible to do these reviews quickly—and while some counties have managed it frequently and quickly, other counties have not. It would be invidious to mention names, but one county council, for example, published a draft map in 1953 and nothing had happened since. The Minister directed the council to publish the provisional map in 1966 and the definitive map in 1967, and on this were only the agreed paths. The disputed paths were left to be shown at a later stage. Yet nothing can be done to make the Minister expedite this. Other councils reached the definitive stage some time ago and have made no step towards a review. This is a useful Amendment and I hope that the Minister may be prepared to take powers to expedite the preparation of maps and statements.

Mr. Carol Johnson: I support the Amendment. The hon. Member has shown, from the experience of recent years, that the obligations placed on certain authorities by the 1949 Act have been neglected to an extraordinary extent in some cases. It is surprising that the Minister has no power to intervene and expedite surveys as he should be able to do. I think the case is good and it might be that the Minister would welcome these powers. I hope he will find it possible to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: I welcome this Amendment and draw attention to the case of the delinquent authority, which is the East Riding County Council. Following a question I put down, the council was required by the Minister to produce its definitive map. We have an

absurd situation where the definitive map has not taken into account 2,500 disputed paths. The position has been outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson). The Minister has no power to order the quinquennial review which is required by the Act and it need not be undertaken by the authority. It requires an Order for them to undertake this. If the Amendment is passed, he will have the powers. The East Riding example indicates that he needs them.

Mr. Skeffington: I can understand the frustration felt by many people waiting a long time in some areas for these maps. They are perhaps slow in coming, as in the case of the East Riding, which has now been named. This review has to be dealt with urgently. Many paths were left off, but for some reason there are more inquiries requiring long procedures in this area.
There has been long delay but, as the Gosling Committee pointed out in paragraph 12 of their Report, once the first definitive maps have been published the position should be better and the reviews
consist essentially of picking up details of subsequent creations, diversions and closures".
There are only two specific cases where the power might be used. Apart from these we have had no general pressure for the default powers suggested here. There may have been a case for a power of this kind some years ago, but at this stage, where definitive maps are on the point of finality, the Government are not prepared to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Channon: This is a disappointing reply. I hope that the relentless pressure from both sides of the House will continue to be exerted until we get a better answer. I am sure that those hon. Members concerned will not let up their efforts until the Government crumble beneath their combined pressure. Meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Iremonger: I beg to move Amendment No. 86, in page 41, line 33, at end to insert:

Section 125 (Powers as to gates across highways)

A highway authority may itself erect a gate of the minimum width across so much of a highway, not being a classified road, as consists of a carriageway.

This would amend Section 125 of the Highways Act, 1959, which contains powers concerning gates across highways. It would allow a highway authority itself to erect a gate of the minimum width—ten feet—across a carriageway. It seeks to end the anomaly which allows a local authority to erect a cattle grid but not a gate across a carriageway. It is designed to deal with the situation which arises not infrequently when a farmer has two fields, one on either side of a carriageway.

When the farmer drives his cattle out of the gate of one field and they have to cross the carriageway to go into the other field through the gate on the opposite side of the carriageway, they are apt to strong along the carriageway. To prevent this, the farmer asks the local authority to erect a ten-foot gate across the carriageway or a pair of gates forming a passageway between the two fields.

But the local authority has not the power to erect a gate under Section 125 of the 1959 Act. It can put in a cattle grid or a pair of grids, but it does not like to do this because it is rather expensive. Therefore, the farmer erects a barbed wire barrier or double barbed wire barrier and then ramblers complain. He then appeals to the local authority under Sections 109 and 110 for an order to downgrade the carriageway to footpath, so that all he has to do is to leave the wire barrier and comply with the law by putting in a stile across what is now a footpath.

In so doing, he has deprived the public of the carriageway and also of the bridle-way. Under the Amendment, he would only have to ask the local authority for a ten-foot gate or a pair of gates, and he would be more likely to get this, or at least the vehicle interests would have much more prospect of success in pressing the authority to give him a gate or a pair of gates. The request would be less easy to resist because it is less expensive than providing cattle grids. This useful Amendment would prevent the loss of a carriageway which otherwise does occur from time to time when farmers are in this situation.

Mr. Skeffington: I admire the hon. Gentleman's tenacity in endeavouring to reform the transport legislation by means of the Countryside Bill. As this Amendment involves Section 125 of the 1959

Act, we consulted the Ministry of Transport. It cannot understand—and I share the doubt—what benefit it would be to the highway user or the local authority to put gates across carriageways. If someone wants a gate, it surely must be the owner concerned. I am trying to relate the hon. Gentleman's strategy to this matter.
I can see that there may be a case in respect of roads used as public footpaths. If these become defined in some way by the surveying authority, then there might be a case for gates. The advice of the Ministry of Transport is that if gates are required, which would not be the normal event, it is not for the highway authority to provide them. For those reasons I could not advise the House to accept the Amendment modifying transport legislation in the Countryside Bill.

Mr. Iremonger: I know that it is late and that there is a piercing blast of chill air, which comes from I know not where, into this Chamber, making us anxious to go home, but I do not think that the Minister has followed the argument. It was my fault. This happens. It means the carriageways are downgraded to pathways because of the influence of the local authority not wanting to put up a gateway, which would meet a perfectly reasonable request by a farmer. It is not suitable to pursue this now, and I do not want the Government to be defeated. I do not wish to leave it there and I do not propose to withdraw the Amendment in order to register my dissatisfaction. I hope that this may be followed through the proper channels on another occasion.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: I beg to move Amendment 112, in page 42, line 29, leave out '28 days' and insert 'two months'.
The terms of a similar Amendment were discussed in Committee and this Amendment is in the nature of a compromise, which I hope will be acceptable. It deals with the amount of time available to objectors who wish to object to the draft map. The existing law is that objectors have a period of four months in which to lodge objections. The proposal in the Bill is that this is reduced to 28 days.
The reduction is a very serious one. As I said in Committee, it will cause considerable difficulties to anyone who does not have professional staff working for them, to scrutinise proposals made by local authorities. I have had some correspondence with the Minister of State for Wales on this, and I would like to take issue with her. She seems to think, perhaps I do her an injustice, but I hope not, that we are dealing with odd objections which it is not unreasonable to expect interested bodies to take up within a matter of 28 days. I have to tell her that we are dealing with the draft map. In one instance we are dealing with something like 2,600 objections in the East Riding. I was told by the late secretary of the East Riding Rambers' Association that it would have taken him a month, working full time, to examine and transcribe the Council's decisions on such work.
We are not dealing with the odd disputes, but often with large numbers. It is not enough to say that one can put in a holding objection. A great deal of work has to be done and this presents problems for voluntary bodies. It is not just the East Riding, either. I am told that the Hereford draft map was not satisfactory to many people. A great number of objections were lodged. A case has been made out for more time for these exclusions. The provisions of the Bill allow for delays on grounds of error or mistake. We shall possibly find that there will be various footpaths at issue because of this part of the Bill. The number of footpaths to examine will be in excess of what my hon. Friend thinks.
3.30 a.m.
My fourth point—and I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) is not here, because I think that he would support me on this—is that there is a growing interest in equestrian sports and there is a desire on the part of horse riders to upgrade footpaths to bridleways. This will come up on revision, but various interested bodies will need time to prepare their cases and 28 days is not enough. I suggested three months in Committee and my hon. Friend suggested a compromise, which I would be happy to accept, of two months. This

is the Amendment which has been tabled and I hope that my hon. Friend will see fit to accept it.

Mrs. White: This Amendment may appear on the Order Paper due to my warm and responsive nature, but at 3.30 a.m. I am not feeling so warm and responsive.
When my hon. Friend the Member for the High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) first put forward his case it seemed to me that perhaps there was something in it, and I was especially concerned with what he said about parish councils. Since then I have looked into the matter further and it appears to me that in the circumstances that would apply concerning this Amendment, where we would be dealing with a revised draft map, not a definitive map, the difficulties which he has enumerated should not be as substantial as he suggests.
As I explained in Committee, one can put in a holding objection. Objectors do not have to prepare their full cases in the 28 days. The organisations concerned, including parish councils, should be in a position to put in holding objections within the period. Long periods are given at the earlier stages in the preparation of these maps, but when we reach this stage in general we should keep to the 28 days, which is a standard period for this kind of operation.
I wrote to my hon. Friend following our discussions in Committee and explained the position as it appeared to me. I do not feel that he has adduced any further evidence tonight which would make us change our minds. I appreciate that he is anxious, as we all are, that these draft revision maps should be properly prepared, but we feel that we are making reasonable provision for this in the Bill as it now stands. I am sorry, but I do not feel that we can recommend the House to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Ramsden: I understand that the hon. Member for the High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson), in moving the Amendment, indicated to the House that had I been here I would have supported him. I merely wish to say that I do not think he had any grounds for saying that.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule 4.

REPEALS.

Amendments made: No. 89, in page 46, line 17, column 3, at end insert: Section 11(3).

No. 90, in page 46, line 49, at end insert:

5 &amp; 6 Eliz. 2. c. 20.
The House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957.
In Part III of Schedule, 1 the words Chairman or Deputy Chairman of the National Parks Commission'.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

3.35 a.m.

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The House will not want a lengthy speech from me at this stage, and I have in mind particularly the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Raymond Fletcher) has the Adjournment debate to look forward to.
There are three matters on which I promised to give to the House such further information as could at this stage. The first is to indicate the Government's attitude on those parts of the Gosling Committee's recommendations which deal with the procedure for opening, closing and diverting footpaths.
In Part III of its Report, the Committee recommends that the pattern and administration of footpaths should be considered as part of environmental planning authorities, and it suggests that the responsibility for considering footpaths under the provisions of Section 153 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, should be transferred from the Ministry of Transport to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.
The Government accept that, now that rural footpaths are almost wholly a recreational matter, it is sensible that they should be considered as part of planning, and we will introduce an amendment to the Town and Country Planning Bill to transfer the footpaths functions of Section 153 accordingly.
The Government also accept in principle the Committee's fifth recommendation, that
Planning authorities should have the power and duty to initiate changes in footpath

patterns and to consider applications for changes both from users and landowners.
We foresee difficulties in applying the suggested detailed procedures proposed in paragraph 27 of the Report, which do not form part of the Committee's recommendations. We think that this recommendation require further consideration to see how it can best be related to the new structure and local plan system. We propose to do this and consult those interested, but we do not contemplate immediate legislation.
In the meantime, the definitive maps state the footpaths position, and the reviews bring it up to date. Now we want local authorities to look forward to see what new paths are needed, what use is made of existing paths, and what alterations could be made to meet future requirements.
The Gosling Committee recommends that footpath order procedures should be simplified. We intend to introduce into the Countryside Bill in another place a new clause to give local authorities greater autonomy in dealing with unopposed orders. We are now entering into the necessary consultations.
The second matter on which I promised to give information to the House was on the application of the Bill and, in particular, Clause 25 to Crown land. Section 97 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act, 1967, applies Section 1 of that Act to vehicles and persons in the public service of the Crown, but, at present, Clause 25 does not apply to Crown land. We are currently engaged in consultation with the various authorities to see whether the Clause could be made to apply to Crown land, and I can tell the House that I am hopeful that it will be possible to reach agreement so that we can move an appropriate amendment to the Bill in another place.
The third matter on which I promised to give information was on the anticipated effect of the recent economy measures upon the implementation of the proposals in the Bill. The Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill, which was published before Christmas, forecast Exchequer expenditure in England and Wales in 1968–69 as £650,000, of which £500,000 was attributable to expenditure under the Act of 1949. It looked forward to an Exchequer expenditure of £2 million


in a full year. As the now printed Estimates show, the total Exchequer expenditure in 1968–69 is expected to be £544,000, instead of £650,000. Grant in respect of local authority expenditure under the 1949 Act and in future under this Bill is paid to local authorities annually in arrears, so that there will not therefore be and would not in any event have been any additional Exchequer expenditure as a result of this Bill in respect of grant in the year 1968–69.
There is, however, likely still to be some additional expenditure direct by the Commission in the exercise of its new functions. The intention that Exchequer expenditure in a full year of operation should reach £2 million remains, but we now expect that it will not be reached as early as was formerly hoped. In fact, we now expect the total expenditure of the Commission and local authorities in the three years to be of the order of the following amounts: In 1968–69, £837,000; in 1969–70, £1,200,000; and in 1970–71, £1½ million.
It is right that I should add that any estimates of expenditure in this field must of necessity be uncertain because they will depend on the decisions made by individual local authorities on the extent to which they are prepared to embark on expenditures of this kind in a period of economic stringency. Having said that, however, I hope the House will agree that the figures which I have given show that in spite of our present economic difficulties the Commission will have a real job of work to do in the coming years, and that it can help local authorities to lay their plans for future expenditure when greater resources can be made available.
I conclude by expressing my gratitude to all who have helped to improve the Bill, as I believe it has been improved, during its passage through the House. I have found it very stimulating to find so many hon. Members on both sides who have a great interest in the subject and who speak from considerable knowledge. I have found it a somewhat exhausting experience. I do not think that there is anything quite so exhausting for a Minister as trying to pilot a non-controversial Bill through the House. Give me a Finance Bill every time. I am grateful in particular to the Opposi-

tion Front Bench. They have been most helpful throughout in what has been a complicated matter.
I pay a tribute, too, to my colleagues who have relieved me of a considerable part of the burden, particularly when I became preoccupied with the Town and Country Planning Bill. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Welsh Office, and to my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. I think that in Standing Committee we all came to realise that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary knew more about this subject than the rest of us put together.

3.43 a.m.

Mr. Channon: I, too, am grateful to my colleagues for the vast amount of work they have put in in an attempt to improve the Bill. We have had a very good relationship with the Minister of State and other Ministers.
I do not wish to delay the House at this time of the night on a Bill which was so generally welcomed by so many people both inside and outside the House, but I must say to the Minister of State—and I am sorry to disagree with him at the end of our proceedings—that it was disappointing to hear this evening that paragraph 27 of the Gosling Report was not to be translated into legislation at the moment. One of our complaints was that there would have to be separate legislation for footpaths. The Government said that that would not be necessary because they would be able to deal with the whole question either in this Bill or in the Town and Country Planning Bill. I hope that the Government will reconsider this to see whether the proposals in paragraph 27 of the Gosling Report, or an amended version of them—they do not have to be in the form suggested in the report—can be included in the Town and Country Planning Bill, if necessary in another place.
There is keen interest in the House in this subject, but it is not one to which the House will again willingly devote itself in the near future. I am sure that it will be a long time before we discuss another Bill dealing with these problems. I think that it will be a tremendous waste of everybody's time if we cannot finally settle this problem for a long time. I would have thought that whatever opinion


one took of the Countryside Bill or the Town and Country Planning Bill, there must be a general wish on all sides of the House that we should implement Gosling and not just hang about and hope that one day there will be time for further legislation.
I beg the Government to reconsider this decision and to see if it is not possible to get legislation into the Town and Country Planning Bill to implement the system that is referred to in paragraph 27 of the Gosling Committee's Report. I hope it is not too late for a decision to be taken to include these matters in the Bill. This Bill, if it is to be implemented properly, is going to cost a great deal of money. We ought not to be under any illusion that it will not cost local authorities a great deal. I have been handed figures to show how much it will cost a medium-sized county council to implement the sign-posting regulations.
The county council has eleven rural district councils, and they estimate that there are about 500 footpaths leaving public metalled roads in each of the rural district councils. They estimate that the total cost will be not far short of £33,000. That is one county council, and it shows the measure of the cost involved. I am not at all sanguine about the speed with which all these proposals are going to be implemented.
We are grateful to the Government for telling us how their economic measures will affect the Bill. We were told originally that the Bill was not going to be one of sacrifices of the Government's economy measures, but there is some partial element of sacrifice involved. I would like the Minister of State, or one of his colleagues, to tell us, since the expenditure is going to be much smaller in the opening years, whether there are going to be priorities laid down. What sort of categories of expenditure does he expect the money to be spent on? There are certain portions of the Bill which it is more urgent to implement, while others could wait without any great loss.
I was interested in what the Minister of State said about Crown land, and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) will, I know, want to make some comment on that, possibly at great length.
I conclude by returning to the point I made at the beginning. I hope very much that the Government, who have been very helpful in suggesting that the Town and Country Planning Bill is to be the vehicle for a great many of the things in Part III of Gosling, will not at the last moment say they cannot do the whole job. I want to ask them if they will have another look at this to see if it is not possible to complete the job and put in the whole of the system in paragraph 27 of the Gosling Committee's Report.
If they cannot do it in exactly the way Gosling suggests, I am sure that with goodwill an acceptable solution can be found. But to leave this bit out now is, I think, going to be the worst of all possible solutions. One might not be able to do it for a very long time indeed, and I hope that as a final gesture, the Minister will say that they will look at this problem again and try to include this in the Town and Country Planning Bill. If they can do that, we shall be able to say that this problem has been thoroughly looked at and dealt with by the House, and that we would not have to return to it again for a considerable period.
Finally, I should like to thank my colleagues for all the work they have done on the Bill—I think we have improved it—and also to thank the Government for the courtesy with which we have been treated at all stages of the proceedings.

3.50 a.m.

Mr. Ramsden: I would not detain the House but for the depressing statement by the Minister of State about the Government's intention over the latest Gosling recommendations. I understand that they do not propose to implement Recommendation No. 5, which is amplified in paragraph 27. This bears out my fears ever since the early stages, when I have argued for comprehensive treatment of the footpath law. The relationship between the timing of Gosling and the timing of the Bill has made this difficult.
Halfway through our proceedings, the Government indicated a timetable which would have enabled the recommendations to be put into effect had they been agreed and arrived in time. Although that happened, the Government apparently do not intend to give legislative effect to those recommendations, and I regard this as a


breach of faith with the Committee. It was in the spirit, if not the letter, of the undertaking which we were given on 1st February that something would be done to tackle this long-standing problem. I am disappointed at the Government's attitude: they have hotted this side of the House. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman can assure me that this does not mean what it appeared to mean. If he cannot, I will see the Bill on its way with some disappointment and an unpleasant taste in the mouth.

3.53 a.m.

Dame Joan Vickers: This important Bill will please many people, and I was glad to serve on the Committee. I thank the Minister of State, Welsh Office, for her promise in our discussions on Clause 6 to circulate local authorities about provisions for old people. She has notified me that she has done this, and I think that it will be greatly appreciated.
On Clause 5, the Parliamentary Secretary has been in correspondence with people about Dartmoor and is willing to deal with this matter urgently, so I suppose that some provision introduced in another place will put this on a better footing. The Crown agencies have been very helpful and there is no complaint against them, but the whole system, especially on Dartmoor, will be much easier if there is some agreement. I agree that the question of signposts is a particularly difficult matter because it will be enormously expensive in many counties, particularly Devon. The signposts in Devon seem to be pixilated, since they are often turned around the wrong way or pushed down—whether by animals or people, I do not know. But we have had considerable difficulties, so I know that it will not be easy to get the signposts in order.
I am disappointed that the river authorities are to play such a small part. I gather that it is intended that they will be one of the classes of authorities consulted under Clause 6 (3). They would then have the right, under Schedule 1, to object to proposals with which they do not agree.
This is not satisfactory, however, and it is contrary to the principle of one river, one authority, the principle on which the river autho-

rities have relied in their evolution. That the river authorities are not consulted seems contrary to the Government's original intention. River authorities and the Water Resources Board have been pressing the Minister of Housing and Local Government to give the river authorities a more positive rôle. The White Paper "Leisure in the Countryside" stated in paragraph 37:
The Department will seek to involve, in conjunction with the river authorities, public bodies and others concerned with the appropriate advice and comprehensive plans for developing the use of recreation of the country's waterways, natural and artificial.
This matter was raised on several occasions in Committee, and while I will not detain the House at this hour, I refer hon. Members to columns 389, 406, 937 and 940 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee proceedings. It is a pity that this matter has not been settled on a better basis.
The assurances that were given in Committee were not considered satisfactory at that time and, in the event, it seems that the Government do not want to meet the issue by giving to river authorities the right to participate in the provision of recreational facilities. This is a pity and I hope that further consideration will be given to the matter. In the same way, I trust that the title of the Bill will receive more attention, since the present one is not satisfactory.

3.57 a.m.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: While I had not intended to speak on the Third Reading, I must express my disappointment at the failure of the Government to deal with paragraph 27 of the Gosling Report. We were led to believe that this would be dealt with. We gathered, from the original Clauses, that it was regarded as a separate matter and that the whole problem of footpaths would be covered comprehensively. We have ended up with an incomplete answer to this problem of footpaths and, despite the argument of the lack of time, this could have been covered in a small Bill designed for the purpose. The result is messy legislation and nobody can be certain about the future of footpaths. There will be occasions when individuals, local authorities and others will wish to create, divert and close footpaths, but after 30 sittings in Committee on the Bill we do not have the answer.
The Government could still put this matter in the Town and Country Planing Bill, as we originally expected. After all, we were not responsible for setting up the Gosling Committee. Although I do not want to upset the peaceful atmosphere in which we have discussed the Bill tonight, the Government must be held responsible for setting up the Gosling Committee too late to enable this matter to be properly tackled. The Minister still has time, if he so wishes, to place this issue in the Town and Country Planning Bill, which is on its way through Committee.

4.0 a.m.

Mr. MacDermot: By leave of the House, I seek to reply to one or two points made in the Third Reading debate. The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) complained that the Gosling Committee was set up late. It is better late than never, which was the record of hon. Members opposite in dealing with these problems.
Paragraph 27 of the Report is not a recommendation. I do not think that hon. Members opposite who speak of it as if it were have quite taken that on board. Paragraph 27 says:
we suggest that the law should provide for the following steps to be taken".
When the Report makes recommendations, it does not in fact make a positive recommendation based on paragraph 27. It was a suggestion only, and I have no doubt that the Committee realised the difficulties involved in the suggestion. It would be out of order, even if the House had the patience to listen, for me to try to explain why those suggestions would produce a quite unworkable position, but I would gladly meet hon. Members to explain my reasons for saying that. I cannot undertake, and it would be irresponsible of me to suggest, that we should bring forward legislative proposals in the Town and Country Planning Bill based on recommendations which we believe would produce a wholly unworkable position and an anarchaic state of the law on this subject. All we can do, and what I have done, is to say that we shall at once enter into consultations with the parties concerned to see what procedure we can devise to implement the recommendations which we have accepted.
We have accepted recommendations 4, 5 and 6 of the Report. Recommendation

6 is a clear legislative recommendation which we accept and will implement. We accept that these matters should become a planning function. We are in the middle of devising a new planning system and we have to fit this into that new system. It is not that we are not doing anything about it, but it would be misleading for me to suggest that we could give some undertaking that out of the hat we could produce an answer in a few weeks, when in my view and the view of the Government the Committee has not succeeded in producing detailed proposals which would enable the suggestions to be implemented in a satisfactory way. It is right that I should tell the House that it is likely to require a longer period than that. We are not going to back down on this. We are anxious to see it implemented and we shall do all we can to bring legislation to the House as quickly as we can, or help it to be brought before the House.
It would not be right for us to try to lay down priorities on expendtiure, particularly as we have set up the Commission one of whose main functions will be to advise my right hon. Friend on this question. In the light of the proposals which may come forward from local authorities, the Commission will be in the best position to advise how the relatively scarce resources that will be available in the early period can best be used.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT (ALFRETON-RIPLEY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

4.4 a.m.

Mr. Raymond Fletcher: I find it a matter of regret that I have to welcome my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade, to the Dispatch Box at this unearthly hour of the morning. Nevertheless I do welcome him, for we have never exchanged angry words since we were both elected, and I hope that he will not have any angry words to say in replying to this debate.
The subject for this Adjournment debate was, in a sense, chosen for me and, at first sight, it may appear rather parochial. I emphasise that I am not at this time raising the question of pit closures as such. If each pit closure were debated separately I am afraid there would be no time to debate anything else in this House. But there is a specific and particular problem which concerns my constituency and which relates to a much larger problem which concerns other constituencies. I want to define first the problem concerning my constituency.
In December, 1967, the Alfreton Colliery closed and 560 men lost their jobs. Later Denby Hall Colliery closed and 500 men lost their jobs. I prefer to use the term "lost their jobs" instead of using the word "displaced" because I think it is more accurate. Now we have had the announcement that the Swanwick Colliery will close in September, and this will cause another 770 men to lose their jobs.
Those of us who represent mining constituencies know quite well that as soon as the announcement is made that a colliery is going to be closed, a natural erosion takes place. Miners, or those who are fortunate enough, find other jobs within reasonable distances, and so the colliery tends to close earlier than the target date stated.
By September in this part of my constituency we shall have a problem of the size that I have mentioned. It fits into a larger problem and I think I can best outline the nature of the problem by referring to the evidence given by the Derbyshire County Council to the Hunt Committee. It is pointed out in this evidence that the Erewash Valley—that is a fancy way of describing my constituency—contained 22 collieries employing 17,000 miners in 1951, that by March 1967 there were six collieries employing 6,300, and that by 1970 there will be only two collieries employing about 2,000. This is a massive rundown of a major industry and it has created tremendous problems for all people living in the area.
As to the closures themselves and as to the precise action which has to be taken by the National Coal Board and by the Ministry of Power, I intend to offer no suggestion at this time. There is

machinery in existence between the Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers, and I know that various suggestions are moving upwards through various pipelines to the Government at the moment concerning structural changes in two great nationalised industries.
I want to narrow my argument down to those matters which concern my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I recognise, as he is bound to point out to me, that the development areas must have a high priority—indeed, the highest priority—when the distribution of industry is on the agenda. I understand also that the industrial development certificate system must again be utilised to give top priority, as far as industrial development is concerned, to the development areas. But it has been recognised that even before the Hunt Committee reported, there have crept into Parliamentary language terms like "grey areas" and "intermediate areas", which demand special treatment. The precise form of the treatment I have been told many times, must await the Hunt Committee's report.
I suggest that action can be taken now. A few weeks ago I suggested to my hon. Friend's predecessor that it might be a good idea for the Board of Trade to begin to operate as a kind of location of industry bureau which would bring into effective and fruitful contact those industrialists who wanted to expand, who perhaps did not particularly want to go to a development area, who did not find the financial inducements sufficient to go to a development area but who could be guided in the direction of the grey areas. I suggested that fruitful liaison might be established by special machinery between firms which wanted to expand and local authorities which had prepared the ground for industrial expansion. The reply was to the effect that the regional offices of the Board of Trade can fulfil this function and are doing so.
I emphasise that, having visited the regional office of the Board of Trade at Birmingham, I have no complaints whatever about my, reception or about the degree of understanding which the officials in that office displayed of my constituency's problems. I merely suggest that they should be armed with greater powers to guide industry, if they cannot direct it, in the direction of the grey areas. They should be armed with


powers even to advertise what the grey areas, and my constituency in particular, have done for themselves.
I represent four towns. They squabble quite a lot among themselves, but each of them has done a considerable amount of work on its own to prepare sites, to lay on water supplies, to develop a sewerage system, and to negotiate the necessary lines for other developments. Alfreton, in particular, recently bought a site of 60 acres. Three establishments have been granted i.d.cs for that industrial site. We are grateful to the Board of Trade for those i.d.cs and for that sanctioned development. When the last of these firms is in full operation, they will employ only 300 people. So, although we are grateful for what we have already received, we still require more to deal with the problem, which is on a scale that now begins to push our grey areas into areas that begin to look very black indeed.
Our local authorities have prepared the sites and they offer a great deal. They do not ask for a lot, but they can offer a great deal. They can offer sites. They can offer what we call, in the jargon of the House, an infra-structure. In my case, they can offer very easy communication with the Ml. They can offer the most valuable asset of all—highly adapable labour. "Labour" is a term that refers to personal friends of mine, people I know by name and whom I have known for a very long time. Mining labour is highly adaptable labour, and this has beer proved time and time again in many firms in the East Midlands, and spectacularly proved in perhaps the best known firm in the United Kingdom today, the firm of Rolls Royce.
These local authorities have these very tangible and very attractive assets to industrialists who wish to expand. Is it not possible for my hon. Friend, without going too closely into detail, to gear the work of the regional offices of the Board of Trade to providing the kind of link that I now demand between industrialists who want to expand and local authorities which offer facilities for expansion in areas affected by pit closures? This is a 'very modest request. It does not in any sense anticipate the possible findings of the Hunt Committee or any legislation which may flow from those findings.
I make one final plea. As my hon. Friend will be well aware, because we have discussed this before, morale is very low. People are anxious and rumours are rife in the northern part of my constituency. I invite him to visit my constituency at an early date, so that he may see these problems on the spot, discuss what my local authorities have to offer to industrialists, and then take what they tell him back to his Department and transmit it to the regional offices concerned, generally giving the assurance, the living and visible assurance, to my constituents that what needs to be done will in fact be done. I appeal to my hon. Friend to come and look at the problem for himself.

4.15 a.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Edmund Dell): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Raymond Fletcher) for his kind words. I am sure that there will be no angry words between us, though I express the hope that this, the first Adjournment debate which I have taken on behalf of the Board of Trade, is no guide to the sort of hour at which such debates regularly take place.
My hon. Friend has not stayed up only tonight to argue his constituents' case. He has done a great deal to make the problems of Alfreton and Ripley known to the Board of Trade. He has constantly pressed for the introduction of industry to the area. He has led deputations to see my predecessor as Minister of State, one deputation from Ripley in June, 1967 and one from Alfreton as recently as 7th March, 1968. We are grateful to him.
I listened with interest to what my hon. Friend had to say about his area tonight. This part of the Erewash Valley has already seen a considerable decline in coal mining. I can understand and sympathise with the concern of the local community when further pits close. However great the economic justification for closures in particular cases and the redeployment which follows, the effect on the individuals concerned is not something which we can ignore.
Alfreton is still heavily dependent on coal mining, with about a quarter of the insured population engaged in the industry. I join my hon. Friend straight


away in paying tribute to the enterprise of the urban district council, which has itself purchased a site of 60 acres for industrial development and has an option from the National Coal Board for the purchase of a further 33 acres adjacent to that site. Facilities of this sort are an essential prerequisite of development and should be attractive to industrialists.
The urban district of Ripley falls partly in the Alfreton Ministry of Labour employment exchange area and partly in the Belper area, while it abuts on to the Heanor area. Belper is far less heavily dependent on coal mining than either Alfreton or Heanor, but Ripley has undoubtedly suffered from the decline in coal mining in recent years and, like Alfreton, is still heavily dependent on the industry.
As my hon. Friend said, Alfreton colliery, which is near the urban district of Alfreton, and Denby colliery, which is near Ripley, have both closed this year. I understand that of the 410 men affected at Denby just over 140 were made redundant, while at Alfreton some 120 became redundant out of a total of 530. Swan-wick pit, also near Alfreton, currently employs 785. This pit has been in jeopardy since August 1967, and I understand that the National Coal Board has recently announced the closure date of 28th September.
The Coal Board will, of course, try to offer alternative employment in coal mining to as many men as possible. In this connection, it must be remembered that there are about 20 other pits in operation within a 10-mile radius of Alfreton. In addition, there will be a number of men retained for a period on salvage work. I appreciate, however, that in spite of these efforts a number of men will become redundant. A high proportion of those made redundant will be 55 or over, most of whom, if not of retirement age, will benefit from the new scheme recently introduced by my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Power.
Under these arrangements, the men of 55 and over who become redundant will have their pay made up to 90 per cent. of their former take-home pay for three years, at the end of which time they will become eligible for their mine worker's pension straight away.
I also agree with all my hon. Friend said about the adaptability of miners. That is no doubt one of the reasons why, despite the rundown in the coalmining industry, unemployment has not reached high rates in the area, though I can understand the concern. The average for Alfreton for 1967 was 2·2 per cent., while in Heanor it was 2·1 per cent., and in Be1per 1·5 per cent. There has been an increase recently, and in Alfreton the rate was 3·3 per cent. in March, compared with 2·4 per cent. in Heanor and 2·3 per cent. in Belper. These rates are not high compared with those of many colliery closure areas in development areas, where some places are very hard hit. Industrial development in the Erewash valley area and the proximity of such industrial towns as Nottingham, Derby and Sheffield have undoubtedly helped the area to cope with the colliery rundown and helped reduce the unemployment problem arising from it.
One of the solutions put forward to cope with the colliery rundown is that the area should be scheduled as a development area. My hon. Friend understands the priority that must be given to development areas. Even if the circumstances of Alfreton and Ripley were thought to be comparable with colliery closure areas in the development areas—and in our view they are not—we have moved away from the designation of small individual development districts to broader development areas, taking account of wider regional circumstances.
My hon. Friend also spoke about the problem of intermediate assistance. Here we must await the outcome of the deliberations of the Hunt Committee, which is examining the problem of the intermediate areas. Its report is expected this autumn. We could not make an exception in favour of one area and we do not think that it would be right to take action in advance of receiving the Committee's advice. The Committee has received evidence from the East Midlands Economic Planning Council and although this has not been published I can say that it pays particular attention to the problems of the East Midland colliery areas.
This does not, however, mean that there is nothing we can do for the area. While we must pay full attention to the needs of the development areas


for new industry we can and do administer the industrial development control flexibly outside the development areas. From the beginning of 1965 to the end of February, 1968, 40 certificates were approved for projects in the three exchange areas of Alfreton, Heanor and Belper. The total area was 875,000 square feet, and the developers estimated their additional labour requirements at nearly 750, of which about 590 were for males. The action of Alfreton Urban District Council in providing land for industrial development should be of great help in attracting industry. While its efforts to do this have not so far been successful this task is essentially of a long-term nature, and I hope that it will continue and will be successful.
For our part, the development areas must continue to have first priority, but subject to this any project suited to the needs and resources of the AlfretonRipley area would be granted an industrial development certificate. I hope that this assurance helps my hon. Friend. We shall not lose sight of the problems which have been put forward so tenaciously and ably by him. I assure him that we shall operate a generous industrial development certificate policy

throughout the area. I must also emphasise the need for the local councils to do their utmost to help themselves. That is why I particularly commended. as did my hon. Friend, Alfreton's action in buying land for development and advertising it widely. There is also the problem of clearing up dereliction, on which the older miners can perhaps be employed.
My hon. Friend referred to the desirability of the Board of Trade's becoming a kind of location of industry bureau. I am grateful for what he said about the Board of Trade regional office. I know that he and his local authorities have been active in drawing the attention of the Board of Trade's regional controller to industrial sites in the area and I am sure that the controller will likewise draw those sites to the attention of any suitable inquirers.
I shall take note of all my hon. Friend's suggestions and take an early opportunity of accepting his invitation to visit his constituency so that I can study the problem on the spot.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Four o'clock a.m.